PRINCIPLE: Every person has the right to defend his or another person’s

body or property, if there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to such

body or property.

FACTS: Leela Meenamma Iyer is a well-known lawyer and a feminist. She usually
works till late, and one day, when she was leaving her chamber for home, two men
started following her and harassing her. She raised a hue and cry, and her
colleague, Ram Arora, who happened to be passing by, heard her. Ram started
calling out names to the other men and they got into a fight. Ram, being strong,
soon had them begging for forgiveness. As they were trying to flee, Ram picked up
a brick, lying nearby, and hit one of the men on their head. As a result, the man
died.
Leela Iyer decided to advocate Ram’s case since she owed him her life. She
pleaded the ground of right of private defence for him, requesting the Court to
acquit Ram and absolve him of all charges. What should the Court’s decision be?

(a)Ram should be acquitted since he was trying to protect himself

(b) The Court should not press charges on Ram, since he was trying to save Leela,
and the Right of Private Defence extends to protecting others
(c) Ram should be punished for murder

(d) Ram and Leela should be punished for the murder of the deceased.

PRINCIPLE: Theft is said to be committed when a person removes a movable

property from the possession of its owner dishonestly, with a view to take the
property or to profit from it.

FACTS: Lily was a foreigner and was visiting India to attend a friend’s wedding in
Jaipur. She reached Jaipur two days before the wedding and decided to explore the
city, shop and enjoy the delicacies that the city had to offer. While she was
roaming around on the crowded streets, she dropped her wallet on the pedestrian.
She moved on without realizing it. However, Chintu, who was a helper at the
Chaat shop, happened to notice the incident, and picked up the wallet and kept it
with him. Is he liable for theft?

(a) No, since the wallet was not in her possession

(b) Yes, because he was unjustly enriched by something that didn’t belong to him
(c) Yes, because it is morally wrong to steal
(d) No, it is Lily’s fault- she should have been more careful

Principles:

A. Whoever intending to take any moveable property out of the possession of any
person without that person’s consent, moves that property out of his or her
possession, is said to commit theft.

B. A person who, without lawful excuse, damages any property belonging to

another intending to damage any such property shall be guilty of causing criminal
damage.

C. Damage means any impairment of the value of a property.

Facts:

Draupadi, an old lady of 85 years, used to live with her granddaughter Subhadra.
Draupadi was ill and therefore bedridden for several months. In those months, she
could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After
she died, Subhadra hired a cleaner, Vinodji, to clean the room and throw away any
rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Draupadi had
stacked in a corner of her room. Vinodji asked Subhadra if he should clear away
the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Vinodji took the pile to the
municipality rubbish dump. While Vinodji was sorting and throwing away the
newspapers, he was very surprised to find a beautiful painting in between two
sheets of paper. He thought that Subhadra probably wouldn’t want this old painting
back, especially because it was torn in several places and the colour was fading. He
took the painting home, mounted it on a wooden frame and hung it on the wall of
his bedroom. Unknown to him, the painting was an old ‘masterpiece, and worth
twenty thousand rupees. Before mounting the painting, Vinodji pasted it on a plain
sheet of paper so that it does not tear any more. By doing so, he made its
professional ‘restoration very difficult and thereby reduced its value by half.
Vinodji’s neighbour Champi discovered that the painting belonged to Subhadra.
With the motive of returning the painting to Subhadra, Champi climbed through an
open window into Vinodji’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed
the painting from his house.

11. Has Vinodji committed theft?

(a) Yes, Vinodji has committed theft of the newspapers and the painting.

(b) No, Vinodji has not committed theft because he had Draupadi’s consent.

(c) Yes, Vinodji has committed theft of the painting, but not of the newspapers

(d) No, Vinodji has not committed theft because he has not moved the painting out
of Draupadi’s possession.

12. Is Vinodji guilty of criminal damage?

(a) No, Vinodji is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair
the value of the painting.

(b) Yes, Vinodji is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on
to the painting
(c) No, Vinodji is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in
his possession anymore.

(d) No, Vinodji is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the
painting.

13. If Vinodji had discovered the painting before leaving Subhadra’s house rather
than at the rubbish dump, would he have been guilty of theft in this case?

(a) Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the newspapers and the paintings.

(b) No, he would not be guilty of theft.

(c) Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the painting. (d) None of the above.

14. Is Champi guilty of theft?

(a) No, Champi is now guilty of theft since the person she took the painting from
(Vinodji) was not its lawful owner.

(b) No, Champi is not guilty of theft since she took the painting only with the
motive of returning it to Subhadra.

(c) Yes, Champi is guilty of theft as she took the painting out of Vinodji’s
possession without his consent.

(d) None of the above

15. Which of the following propositions could be inferred from the facts and the
rules specified

(a) Champi is guilty of criminal damage as the person she took the painting from
(Vinodji) was not its lawful owner.
(b) Champi is guilty of criminal damage as she took the painting without Vinodji’s
consent.

(c) Champi is not guilty of criminal damage as the painting has not been
completely destroyed.

(d) None of the above.

PRINCIPLE: When a person uses force without lawful justification, he commits

battery.

FACTS: Madhav and Anil had an argument during a meeting. After the argument,
Anil in order to humiliate Madhav pulls his chair when he is about to sit. As a
result, Madhav falls down. He is not hurt but he still goes on to institute a case of
battery against Anil. Decide.

A. Anil is not liable because Madhav is not hurt.

B. Anil is not liable because it did not require any force to pull the chair.
C. Anil is not liable as their argument justified his action.
D. Anil is liable because his action is not justified.

PRINCIPLE: Whenever any person dishonestly takes any movable property out of
the possession of any other person without his consent, he is guilty of theft.

FACTS: X comes to Y’s house and takes away a book with the intenion to return
it.

A. X commits theft because the book has been taken away without Y’s consent.
B. X does not commit theft because he intends to return the book.
C. X commits theft because he has taken a book which is movable property.
D. X commits theft because he has moved the book from Y’s house.
FACTS: Anuj finds a purse on the road and he keeps it. Decide if this act amounts
to theft.
A. Anuj has committed theft because the purse does not belong to him.
B. Anuj has committed theft because he did not try to find the owner of the purse.
C. Anuj is not guilty of theft because he did not take the purse from anybody’s
possession.
D. Anuj has committed theft because he did not report to the police.

FACTS: Prerna finds a diamond ring lying on Manika’s table. She picks up thr ring
with the intention to dishonestly keep it with her.

A. Prerna commits theft because she has moved the ring from Manika’s table
without her consent.
B. Prerna commits theft because she has still not left Manika’s house.

C. Prerna does not commit theft because Manika is careless about her valuables.
D. Prerna commits theft the moment she picked up the ring and intended to
dishonestly keep it.

FACTS: Raju goes to Ram’s house and sees his cellphone lying there on the table.
He picks it up and hides it somewhere in the garden with the intention of coming
back later and taking the cellphone away for selling it. Decide if Raju is guilty of
theft.

A. Yes.
B. No. because he merely played a prank on his friend.
C. Yes, because he did not inform his friend about the place where he has hidden
the cellphone.
D. Yes because he intended to take away the immovable property from Ram’s
possession and with the same intention he removed the property.
PRINCIPLE: The law gives a person his right to protect his property and his
person from any attack with the use of a reasonable amount of force. Private
defence is not justified as a pre- emptive attack and is also not justified when the
attack is already over. Disproportionate force must not be used in private defence.

FACTS: Baboo had placed a live wire running across his land. When Babloo
passed through Baboo’s land to go to his own house; he came in contact with the
wire and was seriously injured. Later he brought a case for damages against Baboo.
Decide if he will succeed or not.

A. Babloo will win the case because he had a right to pass over Baboo’s property
to reach his own house.
B. Babloo will win the case because Baboo used unreasonable force to protect his
property and it was unnecessary force.
C. Baboo will win in this case because it was his property and Babloo was a
trespasser.
D. Baboo will win the case because Babloo should have taken due care and caution
while walking on the land.

PRINCIPLE: The law gives a person his right to protect his property and his
person from any attack with the use of a reasonable amount of force. Private
defence is not justified as a pre- emptive attack and is also not justified when the
attack is already over. Disproportionate force must not be used in private defence.

FACTS: Rahul trespassed into Sonia’s property and was trying to nail something
onto the wall of her house. He was on a ladder doing this and when Sonia, saw
this, she shook the ladder and Rahul fell onto the ground sustaining severe injuries.
Rahul incurred heavy expenses in the hospital for treatment. Later, he filed a case
for damages and to recover the money incurred in the hospital. Decide.
A. Sonia is not liable because Rahul trespassed into her land.
B. Sonia is not liable because Rahul trespassed into her property.
C. Sonia is liable because she used unreasonable force. It was a pre-emptive attack
and was disproportionate.
D. Sonia is liable because she did something very wrong by pulling the ladder.