Cases
MOOT COURT NO. – 2
DATE : 28 JAN . 2013.
STUDENT ADVOCATE
POKHARKAR CHHAYA BHAUSAHEB
B.COM.LL.B.-III
ROLL NO . - 16.
IN THE COURT OF HIGH COURT
OF BANGALORE AT KARNATAKA
RAHUL Appellant
V/S
State of Karnataka Respondent
Appearing on behalf of Respondent
INDEX SR.NO | PARTICULARS | PAGE NO. | 1. | List of Abbreviations | | 2 | Authority Cited | | 3 | Statement Of Jurisdiction | | 4 | Fact Of Case | | 5 | Issue Of The Case | | 6 | Body Of Pleading | | 7 | Prayer Clause | |
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1. Indian Evidence Act 1872 2. Indian penal code 1860 …show more content…
In this case Rahul given blow in Gopalkrishna stomach is grievous force use that is not reasonable.
In sec. 99 of I.P.C. says that Right of private defense is no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defense.
In sec. 3(1) of criminal Law act 1967, A person may use force as is reasonable in the circumstance in preventing of crime in effecting or assisting in Lawful arrest of offender or suspected offender or of person unlawfully at large.
Reasonable force : state that you can only use the minimum amount of force necessary to be remove the immediate threat away from yourself of other spectators once you have achieve this then you must disengage from the use of force.
Case laws : -
-------------------------------------------------
R
-------------------------------------------------
v/s
-------------------------------------------------
scarlett 1994
The jury where the directed that the defendant has use more force than necessary in the bar and that had cause the decease to fall and strike his head and he was guilty of manslaughter, Defendant was convicted.
-------------------------------------------------
R
-------------------------------------------------
v/s
-------------------------------------------------
owino 1995 The appeal firmly denied that Scarlett is to be interpreted as permitting a subject to test in examining whether force use in self