The Indian Penal Code (IPC) has various basic defences that exonerated criminal liability based on the concept that even if a person commits an offence, he cannot be held accountable. This is Because the person's conduct was justified at the time of the offence or there was a lack of mens rea. Exceptions such as mistake of fact and accident among others' are possible when is misinformed about the presence of certain facts and the conduct is performed without criminal intent.

Mistake of fact:-This exemption applies where an accused has misinterpreted a fact that eliminates a criminal element. This legal weapon can be utilised if the accused is able to demonstrate that he or she was mistaken about the presence of certain facts or was unaware of the existence of such facts however the said mistake than of law. In the same spirit, Sec 76 of the IPC states, the act done by a person bound or mistakenly behaving himself is bound by law. Nothing constitutes offence if it is committed by a person who is or thinks himself to be obligated by law to do it due to a mistake of fact rather than a mistake of law.

Accident:-Using this defence, a person might avoid criminal liability when their actions are the result of an accident, Such an act must be intentional. The purpose of the law is not to penalise a person foa r matter over which they have no control. In such Spirit sec 80 of IPC states, accident in doing a lawful act nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune and without any criminal intension or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in lawful means with proper care and caution.

Question: Kamlesh, a farmer has a plot of land on which he grows wheat for the wholesale market in the neighbouring city. One day, he found that his crops had been uprooted, and he assumed that it was the result of boars' activities, as Boars had frequently been sighted in and around that region. On the second day, he discovered his crops uprooted once more and felt activity in the field. As there is no law to make shooting animals an offence so he drew this bow and arrow and shot at the location where he sensed movement. It was discovered that he had injured a person. Can Kamlesh use the accident defence?

No, before shooting an arrow Kamlesh should have determined the identity of the miscreants.

Yes, as Kamlesh shot an arrow believing it to be a boar and did not intend to hurt a person instead.

No, as Kamlesh shot an criminal which is an illegal act in itself.

Yes, as Kamlesh has all the rights to protect his field and crop, irrespective of who attempts to destroy it

View Solution

Assertion (A): In the Event of violation of any legal right (tort) the aggrieved party is entitled to recover unliquidated damages.

Reason (R): The object of awarding damages to the aggrieved party is to put him in the same position in which he would have been if the wrong would not have been committed. Damages are therefore, assessed on that basis.

Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A

Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A

A is true but R is false

A is false but R is true

View Solution

Concepts Covered - 1

Case Laws

Introduction:

The principle of remoteness of damage is a crucial concept in tort law that determines whether a defendant can be held liable for the harm or loss suffered by the plaintiff.
It involves assessing the foreseeability of the damage caused by the defendant's negligence.

Key Principle:

The general rule is that a defendant is only liable for damage that is reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of their negligent actions.
If the damage is too remote or unforeseeable, the defendant is not liable.

Different Case Law Examples

1. The Wagon Mound Case (1961):

Background: A ship leaked furnace oil into a harbor, and the oil was ignited by a spark from the nearby wharf, causing extensive damage.
Ruling: The court held that the shipowner was not liable because the extensive fire damage was not reasonably foreseeable from the oil spill.
Explanation: This case emphasizes that to establish liability, the damage must be reasonably foreseeable. If it's too remote or unforeseeable, the defendant is not liable.

2. The Wagon Mound Case (1967):

Background: This case followed the Wagon Mound (No. 1) case, with a similar oil spill. Sparks from welding operations ignited the oil, causing damage.
Ruling: In this case, the court held the shipowner liable because the damage, though unforeseeable in the first case, was foreseeable in these circumstances.
Explanation: This case illustrates that foreseeability can depend on the specific circumstances. Damage that is unforeseeable in one situation may be foreseeable in another.

3. Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. v. Eastern Counties Leather Plc (1994):

Background: A chemical company negligently allowed chemicals to escape into the ground, contaminating a water supply.
Ruling: The court held the chemical company liable because the harm to the water supply, though not a direct result of the chemicals' escape, was reasonably foreseeable.
Explanation: This case reinforces that defendants can be held liable for reasonably foreseeable consequences of their negligence, even if the damage is not immediate or direct.

4. Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2003):

Background: This Indian case involved contamination of drinking water by a chemical plant, causing health issues for residents.
Ruling: The Supreme Court of India held the chemical company liable, emphasizing that the harm to residents should have been reasonably foreseeable.
Explanation: This case illustrates that the principle of foreseeability of damage applies in Indian tort law, making defendants liable for reasonably foreseeable harm due to their negligence.

The "Thin Skull" Rule:

In tort law, the "thin skull" rule states that a defendant must take their victim as they find them, even if the victim's condition or susceptibility to harm is unusual or unexpected.
If the harm is reasonably foreseeable, the defendant is still liable, even if it is more severe due to the victim's unique condition.