When something occurs over which you have no control and it is effected of accentuated by the forces of nature then you are not liable in tort law for such inadvertent damage that may arise out of such. However if you were well aware of the risks and could have possibly taken steps to stop the wrongful act or damaging act or have in anyway mitigated it then you cannot duck responsibility under this defence. Constituents of this defence:
Due to forces of nature or unnatural circumstances.
You had no control over it and it happened suddenly.
You had no knowledge or could not do anything to mitigate the damage.
Plaintiff the Wrongdoer
Let’s take an illustration to understand this concept. Ketan and Shailesh are next door neighbours. However they cannot stand each other and have frequent quarrels which often turn nasty. In the dead of night Ketan steals into Shailesh’s property claiming he wanted to take a walk in the latter’s gardens. Shailesh had a pet dog called YenYalYas who jumped at Ketan. Ketan files a suit claiming damges from Shailesh. Shailesh can take the plea of ‘plaintiff the wrongdoer’ as Ketan himself had first trespassed onto his property and thus could not claim a suit having committed a wrong himself in the first place.
Volenti non fit injuria
This principle states that if one voluntarily takes the risk of something then he may not claim a suit of action of such risk leads to injury. However this risk must have been taken under free Consent and not under coercion and with the full knowledge of the risk. A corollary of this principle is Scienti non fit injuria which means that only knowledge of the risk is not enough to claim defence there must be acceptance to undergo the resultants of the risk undertaken. There had to be consent and mere knowledge is not sufficient.
Private Defence
Nothing is wrong if done with regard to protecting one’s own self, another self, one’s property or another’s property against a threat to such. Suppose Someone points a loaded gun at me and threatens me I do have the right to bodily harm that person in order to save myself or someone else. However there are limitations to such rule with regard to the force being used which must be proportional to the risk presented.
Inevitable Accident
This is a defence that can be claimed under a situation where inspite of taking reasonable care and protection the harm could not be averted. This does not mean absolutely inevitable but unavoidable even after taking necessary precautions with respect to the harm in question.
Mistake
This is not a very often claimed defence as it is very hard to fit in a case into the subtle limits of this defence of ‘mistake’. This refers to a particular case wherein a person was under mistaken knowledge usually and even after taking reasonable precautions could not have been reasonably expected to not commit the so called ‘mistake’.
Necessity
Under dire conditions if one does something which results in a tort then once can usually claim the defence of necessity. Such condition should however be able to come under the bracket of ‘general good’ or ‘greater good’ and to prevent a bigger harm.
Offences against Person
offence against the person” usually refers to a crime which is committed by direct physical harm or force being applied to another person. They are usually analysed by division into the following categories:
Fatal offences
Sexual offences
Non-fatal non-sexual offences
Murder and culpable homicide
Culpable Homicide
A person commits culpable homicide, if the act by which the death is caused is done. The intentions can be :
With the intention of causing death
With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death Knowledge
With the knowledge that he is likely to cause death
Culpable homicide is the genus and generic term.
There is intention, but the intention may or may not exist. Even if exists it is not so much stronger as is evident in murder.
Intention to kill can be the number and nature of wounds or injuries on the body of the deceased, for example, if one dies with beatings received twice with fists on head, it is a culpable homicide.
Less serious when compared with murder.
Every culpable homicide is not murder (it may or may not amount to murder).
Culpable homicide is not murder if the case falls within any of the exceptions mentioned in Section 300.
Punishment is lesser than murder.
The maximum punishment for culpable homicide is imprisonment for life (under Sec. 304) or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine (Sec. 304).
Murder
Subject to certain exceptions, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which death is caused is done:
With the intention of causing death
With the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused
With the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death;
With the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all Probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above.
Murder is a species.
There is strong intention to kill this person (victim). Generally there shall be a plan to kill.
The wounding is a serious one through by stabbing with knife several times, it amounts to murder.
More serious than culpable homicide. It is an aggravated form of culpable homicide.
Every murder is primarily a culpable homicide. On fulfilling certain conditions, culpable homicide amounts to murder.
According to Section 300, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder.
Punishment is heavier than culpable homicide.
The punishment for murder is death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine (Sec. 302).
,
General Defences
Defence is the act of protecting something from harm or danger. In the context of military strategy, defence is the use of military force to protect a country or its interests from attack. Defence can be divided into two main categories: active defence and passive defence.
Active defence is the use of military force to attack an enemy before they can attack you. This can include offensive operations, such as airstrikes or ground invasions, as well as defensive operations, such as air defence or anti-submarine warfare.
Passive defence is the use of military force to protect yourself from attack. This can include things like fortifications, such as bunkers and trenches, as well as electronic warfare, such as jamming enemy communications.
There are many different types of defence, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. Some of the most common types of defence include:
Active defence: This is the use of military force to attack an enemy before they can attack you. This can include offensive operations, such as airstrikes or ground invasions, as well as defensive operations, such as air defence or anti-submarine warfare.
Passive defence: This is the use of military force to protect yourself from attack. This can include things like fortifications, such as bunkers and trenches, as well as electronic warfare, such as jamming enemy communications.
Counter-insurgency: This is the use of military force to suppress an insurgency, or an armed uprising against a government.
Counter-terrorism: This is the use of military force to prevent or respond to terrorist attacks.
Chemical defence: This is the use of military force to protect yourself from chemical weapons.
Civil defence: This is the use of military force to protect the civilian Population from attack.
Electronic warfare: This is the use of military force to disrupt or destroy enemy electronic systems.
Force protection: This is the use of military force to protect your own forces from attack.
Intelligence: This is the collection and analysis of information about the enemy.
Maritime security: This is the use of military force to protect shipping and other maritime assets from attack.
Nuclear defence: This is the use of military force to protect yourself from nuclear attack.
Operational security: This is the use of military force to protect your own operations from being compromised.
Personnel security: This is the use of military force to protect your own personnel from attack.
Physical security: This is the use of military force to protect your own facilities and equipment from attack.
Psychological operations: This is the use of military force to influence the enemy’s thinking and behaviour.
Security cooperation: This is the use of military force to cooperate with other countries on defence matters.
Space security: This is the use of military force to protect your own space assets from attack.
Special operations: This is the use of military force to carry out special missions, such as hostage rescue or sabotage.
Strategic defence: This is the use of military force to protect your country from attack.
Unconventional warfare: This is the use of military force to fight against an enemy who is not using conventional military tactics.
Weapons of mass destruction defence: This is the use of military force to protect yourself from attack with weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.
The choice of which type of defence to use depends on a number of factors, including the nature of the threat, the Resources available, and the political and strategic objectives.
1. What is a general defence?
A general defence is a defence that can be used in any type of criminal case. It is a defence that does not rely on the specific facts of the case, but rather on a general principle of law.
2. What are some examples of general defences?
Some examples of general defences include insanity, automatism, duress, and necessity.
3. How does a general defence work?
To succeed with a general defence, the defendant must prove that the defence applies to their case. This means that they must prove that the facts of their case meet the legal requirements of the defence.
4. What are the advantages of using a general defence?
One advantage of using a general defence is that it can be used in any type of criminal case. This means that it can be used even if the defendant does not have a specific defence to the charges against them.
Another advantage of using a general defence is that it can be a very effective defence. If the defendant can prove that the defence applies to their case, they may be able to avoid conviction.
5. What are the disadvantages of using a general defence?
One disadvantage of using a general defence is that it can be difficult to prove. The defendant must prove that the facts of their case meet the legal requirements of the defence. This can be a difficult task, especially if the evidence is not clear.
Another disadvantage of using a general defence is that it can be a very serious defence. If the defendant is successful with their defence, they may be able to avoid conviction. However, if they are unsuccessful, they may be found guilty of the charges against them and receive a harsher sentence.
6. What should I do if I am considering using a general defence?
If you are considering using a general defence, you should speak to a lawyer as soon as possible. A lawyer can help you to understand the defence and whether it is appropriate for your case. They can also help you to prepare your case and to present it to the court.
7. What are some common mistakes that people make when using a general defence?
Some common mistakes that people make when using a general defence include:
Not understanding the defence
Not preparing their case properly
Not presenting their case effectively
If you are considering using a general defence, it is important to avoid these mistakes. Speak to a lawyer as soon as possible and get their help in preparing and presenting your case.
A defendant who raises the defense of insanity must prove that: (A) they did not know what they were doing was wrong. (B) they did not know the nature and quality of their actions. (C) they were unable to control their actions. (D) all of the above.
A defendant who raises the defense of duress must prove that: (A) they were forced to commit the crime by another person. (B) they had no reasonable alternative to committing the crime. (C) they were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (D) all of the above.
A defendant who raises the defense of mistake of fact must prove that: (A) they had a reasonable belief that their actions were legal. (B) their belief was based on facts that were unknown to the prosecution. (C) their belief was not reckless or negligent. (D) all of the above.
A defendant who raises the defense of intoxication must prove that: (A) they were so intoxicated that they did not know what they were doing. (B) they were so intoxicated that they could not control their actions. (C) their intoxication was caused by the voluntary consumption of alcohol or drugs. (D) all of the above.
A defendant who raises the defense of automatism must prove that: (A) they were in a state of unconsciousness or unconsciousness-like automatism. (B) their automatism was not caused by their voluntary actions. (C) their automatism was not caused by a disease or defect of the mind. (D) all of the above.
A defendant who raises the defense of necessity must prove that: (A) they committed the crime to avoid a greater harm. (B) there was no other reasonable way to avoid the greater harm. (C) the harm they caused was not disproportionate to the harm they were trying to avoid. (D) all of the above.
A defendant who raises the defense of self-defense must prove that: (A) they reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (B) they used no more force than was necessary to defend themselves. (C) they did not provoke the attack. (D) all of the above.
A defendant who raises the defense of defense of others must prove that: (A) they reasonably believed that another person was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (B) they used no more force than was necessary to defend the other person. (C) they did not provoke the attack. (D) all of the above.
A defendant who raises the defense of duress by another person must prove that: (A) they were forced to commit the crime by another person. (B) they had no reasonable alternative to committing the crime. (C) they were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (D) all of the above.
A defendant who raises the defense of duress by circumstances must prove that: (A) they were forced to commit the crime by circumstances beyond their control. (B) they had no reasonable alternative to committing the crime. (C) they were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (D) all of the above.