Difference Between Crime And Crime
commit a criminal act are not governed under this section as the act was a lawful one done to save one’s life.
There is wide difference between the term offence and a criminal act. The word offence is a result or effect of a criminal act. Criminal act is wider than offence (section 40). A criminal act is a series of act which is committed by an offender that results in punishment under the code of the law (as the law maybe). The word act is not confined to the meaning that you do something directly. Even not acting may amount to an act. In case of a sati where people are watching the entire event and are merely standing there as a spectator this proves their tacit support to the event and also qualifies as an encouragement to the person who …show more content…
state of Rajasthan4, the wife of the accused inflicted a single blow and then stood as a mere spectator whereas the accused with others inflicted heavy blows with sharp objects on the deceased. It was held by the court that it could not be held that whether the accused shared a common intention of causing death. Hence, she was not liable for murder and her conviction was changed to grievous hurt.
In the present case of Barendra Kumar Ghosh, the accused argued that he was the man who stood outside the courtyard and was in nowhere in the room. To this contention the court asked why was he present at the scene of the crime at all and why did he not take himself off ? These questions were not answered by the …show more content…
Prior consent (prior meeting of mind). ii. Plan of action.
The concept of Joint liability first came up in the case of R. v. Cruse7. In this case, a constable along with assistants, came to A’s house with an arrest warrant. B, C and D noticed the constable coming and they came out and thrashed him. One of the assistant died at the spot. The question before the court is that whether all the three will be jointly liable or the punishment would be based on the proportionate basis. The court said that when it is not possible to determine who committed the crime, we have to look into the intention of the perpetrators and hold them jointly liable for the crime.
In the Postmaster case, the view of the court on common intention were that if for an act, both the accused are charged but each one is liable to the extent of his act only, then the charges framed against them will be for attempt only, as no more than that can be proved and they would be acquitted of
There is wide difference between the term offence and a criminal act. The word offence is a result or effect of a criminal act. Criminal act is wider than offence (section 40). A criminal act is a series of act which is committed by an offender that results in punishment under the code of the law (as the law maybe). The word act is not confined to the meaning that you do something directly. Even not acting may amount to an act. In case of a sati where people are watching the entire event and are merely standing there as a spectator this proves their tacit support to the event and also qualifies as an encouragement to the person who …show more content…
state of Rajasthan4, the wife of the accused inflicted a single blow and then stood as a mere spectator whereas the accused with others inflicted heavy blows with sharp objects on the deceased. It was held by the court that it could not be held that whether the accused shared a common intention of causing death. Hence, she was not liable for murder and her conviction was changed to grievous hurt.
In the present case of Barendra Kumar Ghosh, the accused argued that he was the man who stood outside the courtyard and was in nowhere in the room. To this contention the court asked why was he present at the scene of the crime at all and why did he not take himself off ? These questions were not answered by the …show more content…
Prior consent (prior meeting of mind). ii. Plan of action.
The concept of Joint liability first came up in the case of R. v. Cruse7. In this case, a constable along with assistants, came to A’s house with an arrest warrant. B, C and D noticed the constable coming and they came out and thrashed him. One of the assistant died at the spot. The question before the court is that whether all the three will be jointly liable or the punishment would be based on the proportionate basis. The court said that when it is not possible to determine who committed the crime, we have to look into the intention of the perpetrators and hold them jointly liable for the crime.
In the Postmaster case, the view of the court on common intention were that if for an act, both the accused are charged but each one is liable to the extent of his act only, then the charges framed against them will be for attempt only, as no more than that can be proved and they would be acquitted of