Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
NON-FATAL OFFENCES, Section 351: Whoever makes any gesture or any…
NON-FATAL OFFENCES
CRIMINAL FORCE
Sec. 349: A person is said to use force when he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to another person or to any substance.
To constitute an offence of criminal force, there must be :warning: :
- Force :check:
Mohamed Abdul Kader: Unlike assault, an act of criminal force requires the application of force to the other party.
- The force must be without the victim’s consent :check:
- Ng Eng Huat: It was clear that the act of the appellant reversing his car was not a negligent act, but an intentional and deliberate act and therefore, he had used criminal force on the driver of the other car.
- Jai Ram: Raising a stick to hit another person is a use of criminal force if it causes the other to flee to save himself or even just to move slightly to avoid being struck.
Sec. 350: Criminal force is when a person intentionally uses force upon another without that person’s consent, in order to cause the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force illegally to cause injury, fear, or annoyance.
Cases
Telapolo Sabbab: There is no offence of criminal force where a ladder is removed, leaving the victim stranded on the roof of a house.
-
Goh Ang Huat: The force must be used on a person. The person must be the ultimate object of the force.
Chandrika Sao v Hazari Lal: A tax inspector was examining books in a shop when the appellant entered and snatched them away. By seizing the books, the appellant had caused the hands of the inspector to jerk and thus, caused motion, which was held to be a use of criminal force.
ASSAULT
- Mere words cannot amount to an assault, but the words which a person uses may give to his gestures such a meaning that would make them amount to an assault.
Tuberville v Savage: The accused placed his hand on the hilt of his sword saying “if it was not assize time, I would not take such language from you.” Although placing his hand on the hilt was a sufficient gesture, the accompanying words indicated that force would not be used. Thus, there was no threat present.
- The threat must be of immediate force.
Smith v Chief Superintendent, Waking Police Station: A woman was held to be assaulted when she saw the accused lurking through her closed bedroom window at 11 pm. Although he was outside and would have to break the window to climb in before he could inflict violence on her, the threat of force was held to be sufficiently immediate.
- If the threat is conditional upon the victim doing something, the threat of force is not immediate, and thus there is no assault.
Birbal Khalifa: The accused, objecting to having his thumb print taken by the policeman, produced a lathi and threatened to break the head of anyone who asked for his thumb print. Held: As the threat was conditional, it did not amount to an assault.
GRIEVOUS HURT
Statutory provision
Sec. 391: Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said voluntarily to cause hurt.
sec. 39: A person is said to cause an effect “voluntarily” when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.
-
Criminal liability
Actus reas: causing bodily pain, disease, infirmity
-
-
CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION
Sec 503: Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, with intent to cause alarm to him, or to cause him to do any act which he's not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act he's legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Elements to be fulfilled
-
cause alarm, or to cause him to do any act he is not bound to do, or to omit
- Mens rea: There must be an intention to influence the mind of such person (to
-
- Actus reus: The threat to injure a person, his reputation or property must be
Ramanathan Yogendran: A charge of criminal intimidation could succeed even if the person making the threat was in no position to carry it out. This is because what is essential to be considered is the intention of the maker and nature of the threat. It suffices that the maker intends to cause alarm, but if he's clearly incapable of carrying out the threat, such fact must be considered.
Habibullah v State: The victim must feel as reasonable man that accused was going to convert his words into action. The threat must be sufficient to overcome the ordinary free will of a firm man
Section 351: Whoever makes any gesture or any preparation, intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person to apprehend that he is about to use criminal force upon that person, is said to commit an assault.
-
-