Criminal Law Test-5

Any communication made in good faith and for the benefit of person and if any harm is caused due to such communication, then it is no offence. This provision is for the defence of person who made communication in good faith no matter such communications causes harm. 

Private defence in not valid if both parties are involved in fighting as it is used for protecting your self from attack.

Section 98 in The Indian Penal Code

98. Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc.—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. Illustrations

(a) Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A; Z is guilty of no offence. But A has the same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane.

(b) A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter Z, in good faith, taking A for a house-breaker, attacks A. Here Z, by attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconception.

Here Z, by attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconcep ­tion.

Offense defined.--A person is guilty of criminal mischief if he:
1. damages tangible property of another intentionally, recklessly, or by negligence in the employment of fire, explosives, or other dangerous means listed in section 3302(a) of this title (relating to causing or risking catastrophe);
2. intentionally or recklessly tampers with tangible property of another so as to endanger person or property;
3. intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer pecuniary loss by deception or threat; or 4. intentionally defaces or otherwise damages tangible public property or tangible property of another with graffiti by use of any aerosol spray-paint can, broad-tipped indelible marker or similar marking device; or
5. intentionally damages real or personal property of another.

The burden of proof is the obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof.

If the statement is made in writing and published, the  defamation  is called "libel."If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is "slander." Defamation  is considered to be a civil wrong, or a tort. A person that has suffered a  defamatorystatement may sue the person that made the statement under  defamation  law.

A has not committed theft as while stealing he was not mature to understand the nature and consequences of the act. He has stolen toys just out of jealousy, he was unaware of the nature of the act.

The principle clearly states that abettor is liable for the crime of abetment only with the crime which resulted from his abetment. The facts state that A instigates B for Arson(burning) Z 's house. B set the fire but he also committed theft which B did himself without any abetment bt A. Hence A is liable only for Arson not for the theft of property.

A actually entered the house without the permission of the owner and also had a 'mens  rea 'or an intention of committing theft, hence he is liable for criminal trespass irrespective of whether he left after leaving money.