Ulu Mahapatra v King
-The case about a child of over 11 below 12 years the deceased picked up a fruit on the ground and Ulla protested and demanded its price and threw the food and threatened to cut Ulla into pieces if he went to Tope for plucking then ulla struck deceased with a kathi on he words he uttered: “I shall cut you to bits now” show that he realized the nature and consequences of what he was going to do

-S83: Penal Codes contemplates that the child should know the nature and physical consequences of

his conduct.

charged at the time of the act or omission complained of did not know that such act or

omission was wrong or did not know what he was doing and—

(a) the state of intoxication was without his consent by the malicious or negligent act

of another person; or

(b)   the   person   charged   was   by   reason   of   intoxication   insane,   temporarily   or

otherwise, at the time of such act or omission.

1) Save as provided in this section and in section 86, intoxication shall not constitute a defence to any criminal charge.

(2) Intoxication shall be a defence to any criminal charge if by reason thereof the person charged at the time of the act or omission complained of did not know that such act or omission was wrong or did not know what he was doing and—

(a) the state of intoxication was caused without his consent by the malicious or negligent act of another person; or

(b) the person charged was by reason of intoxication insane, temporarily or otherwise, at the time of such act or omission.

SECTION 86

(1) Where the defence under subsection 85(2) is established, then in a case falling under paragraph (a) thereof the accused person shall be acquitted, and in a case falling under paragraph (b), the provisions of section 84 of this Code, sections 347 and 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code [Act 593] shall apply.

(2) Intoxication shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the person charged had formed any intention, specific or otherwise, in the absence of which he would not be guilty of the offence.

(3) For the purpose of this and the preceding section “intoxication” shall be deemed to include a state produced by narcotics or drugs.

ignorance or forgetfulness of the fact such as  wrong information,  forgetfulness,  negligence,superstition or inadequate information.

SECTION 79
Nothing is an offence if the act done by a person by reason of a mistake of fact, in good faith believes himself to be justified by law (JBL) to do it.

2 Element: Must be mistake of fact, not mistake of law

3 Element: Must be done in good faith on section 52 that is

act done with due care and attention and test whether mistake was made in good faith or not

is laid down in

4 Element: Must be person that is bound by law and justified by law

The accused were charged for importing piano that is prohibited under the law. The accused had raised the

defence of mistake as he did not know that the law

prohibit such act, so, it is a mistake of fact. The court

held that it is not mistake of fact but it is a mistake of

law.

(a) Being in a state of intoxication

(b) The   state  of   intoxication   was   caused  without   his   consent  by   the

malicious or negligent act of another person 

(c) State of his intoxication rendered him insane

(d) Did not know that his act or omission was wrong or not know what he was doing. 

The   accused   was   saying   that   he   was   in   a   state   of   intoxication   which precluded him from forming the specific intent to kill.

If the accused was intoxicated at the time of the offence as alleged in the charge to the extent. that he was temporarily insane or otherwise or that the degree of intoxication was such that he could not have formed any of the intentions required to constitute the offence of murder, he would not have been   able   to   remember   and   recount   all   the   events   in   lucid   details   as

described by him in his evidence.

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. 

 

1) At the time of the commission of the offence, the accused is suffering from unsoundness of mind. 

2) The accused is unable to understand the nature of his behaviour or is unaware that his act was illegal or against the law.

●During the period of unconsciousness arising from arteriosclerosis which causes the hardening of artery, the accused attacked his wife with a hammer. 

●It was proven medically that the accused was suffering from a congestion of blood in the brain as a result of arteriosclerosis that caused the malfunction of the mind during the commission of the crime.  

●The court held that the accused can raise the defence of unsoundness of mind. 

Explanation—It is a question of fact in such a case whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of such a nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse the risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause harm.

It is for the prosecution to prove both that the victim did not consent and that the defendant did not believe in the victim's consent. 

So if the defendant wrongly believed the victim consented, the defence could be available.

Equally if the victim consented, even if the defendant did not know this, the defence could be available. 

Whether the defence of consent is available will depend on the level of harm inflicted on the victim and the circumstance in which the harm was inflicted. 

Consent known to be given under fear or misconception and consent of a child or person of unsound mind

(a) if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception;

b) if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or

(c) unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.

Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent

Nothing, which is not intended to cause death or grievous hurt, and which is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, to any person above eighteen years of age, who has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm.

Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for the benefit of a person

Nothing, which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.

Act done in good faith for the benefit of a child or person of unsound mind, by or by consent of guardian

Nothing, which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to that person:

Provided that this exception shall not extend to—

(a) the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death;

(b) the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

(c) the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose of preventing death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

d) the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Provided that the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint.

Explanation 1—A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins gang-robbers knowing their character, is not entitled to the benefit of this exception on the ground of his having been compelled by his associates to do anything that is an offence by law.

Explanation 2—A person seized by gang-robbers, and forced by threat of instant death to do a thing which is an offence by law—for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the gang-robbers to enter and plunder it—is entitled to the benefit of this exception.

ILLUSTRATION

2. ) A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.

Nothing done in private defence is an offence

Section 97
Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend—

(a) his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;

(b) the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.

Section 98

Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind

When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind, or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.

1.   The trial judge had stated that the jury should find him guilty and reject the defence of duress if they were sure that he could have avoided acting as he did without harm coming to his family.

2.   The trial judge had not directed the jury in line with R v Baker & Ward as to whether the defendant had foreseen that he was likely to be subjected to threats to commit a crime of the type for which he was charged.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed his conviction. The facts did not suggest that the defendant could have taken evasive action and therefore there was no need to direct the jury on this point. The failure to direct in relation to foresight of the type of crime also amounted to a mis-direction. The Crown appealed to the Lords.

Whether Dato' Balwant Singh was confronted with a apprehension of danger to his

body and whether the act that had done by Dato' Balwant was considered as private

defence.

FACT OF THE CASE

The accused was charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code stated that whoever

commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. The deceased was a road bully who followed the accused’s car after he got enraged thinking that the accused honked at him. When the accused pulled into a mosque, the deceased picked up a large and heavy stick and threatened the accused with the stick. Even after the accused showed the deceased his gun and

fired a warning shot, the deceased did not relent and continued to act even more

aggressively. The Accused in possession of a gun, fearing for his life and safety, the

accused fired his gun and caused the death of the deceased. The accused was

pleaded guilty and called for private defence.