Case List

1. King v. Delhi Held: That a limited company cannot be

Mirror committed for trial on an indictment and
Newspapers therefore, it cannot also be tried. It was
pointed out, that in order that a person may
be brought to trial; he must be committed for
trial. The interpretation of ‘committed for
trial’ in India, however has not found any
place.
But, there have been cases, where
Corporations have been convicted, fined for
libel or nuisance and for breach of statutory
duty imposed on it.
2. R v. The Corporation was held liable for having
Birmingham neglected to repair a highway.
Railway Co.
3. R. v. Great Likewise, a company was held liable for
North of obstructing a highway, whereby public
England nuisance was created.
Railway Co.
4. Lennard A corporation is an abstract. It has no mind
Carrying Co. of its own, its acting and directing will must
Ltd. v. Asiatic consequently be sought in the person of
Petroleum Co. somebody …. Who is really the directing
Ltd mind or will of the corporation, the very ego
and centre of personality of the corporation.
The fault of a corporation is, therefore, fault
of its superior officers who are the directing
mind or will of the corporation
5. JM Desai v. A was the Managing Director and B The Supreme Court refused to accept this
King Emperor the expert of cloth dying company. plea and held them liable. Shah J, said: ‘The
 They had a contract with the Textile essence of liability u/s. 34 is to be found in
Commissioner for dying of clothes. the existence of the common intention
They, however, did not deliver back leading to the doing of a criminal act.’
certain clothes to the Commissioner
in spite of repeated requests.
Ultimately, both the appellants were
prosecuted under Ss. 409 r/w 34.
6. Barendra Kumar In this case several persons appeared The High Court and Privy Council both
Ghose v. King before the Postmaster who was agreed with the findings of trial court and held
Emperor counting the money on the table and the accused guilty of murder. Lord Sumner,
demanded the money. In the quoted a line from Milton’s poem and said,
meantime, they opened fire, killed ‘even if the appellant did nothing, it is to be
the Postmaster and ran away without remembered that in crimes, they also serve
taking any money. The trial court who only stand and wait…’
convicted the accused on being
satisfied that the Postmaster was
killed in furtherance of the common
intention of all, even if he had not
fired the fatal shot.
7. R v. Saunders If A counsels B to poison his wife, B Doctrine of transfer of malice or the
Archers accordingly obtains poison from A transmigration of motive.
and gives it to his wife in a roasted
apple, the wife gives it to a child of B
not knowing it contained poison,
who eats it and dies, this is murder in
B though he intended nothing to the
child.
8. R v. M'Naghten M'Naghten (suffering from insane CJ acquitted the accused saying he had no
delusion) shot and killed Sir Robert understanding that he was violating the laws
Peel mistaking him for Drummord. of God and man. Acquittal resulted furore
Pleaded insanity. Medical exam: and debates in House of Lords. 15 judges
labouring under morbid delusion then laid down the M'Nagten Rules (not
which carried him away beyond the specified) which today form the basis of
power of his own control. modern law of insanity.
9. R v. Dudley Dudley, with Stephens’ but without Held: Self preservation is duty but self-
 Stephens Brooks’ consent, kills and feasts on
the 18 year old boy as they were
stranded after being shipwrecked (no
food/water). They were rescued and
on arrival in England tried for
murder. Pleaded necessity.
10. Commonwealth
v. Holmes
11. Amjad Khan v. Face to face with a murderous attack, The force used in private defence should not
State the accused fires two shots in quick
succession.
12. Woolmington v. The defendant claimed that, he took
DPP a gun with him to the home of the
victim’s mother, with no criminal
intention as such, but just to
demonstrate to his estranged wife,
that he planned to commit suicide if
she didn’t return to him. Further, the
gun, the defendant alleged, went off
by accident and he shot his estranged
wife and was convicted of murder.
sacrifice is higher duty imposed upon the
man.
Self preservation is in no case an absolute
necessity.
All human lives are equal in value and as such
it is unjustified to take another's life for self
preservation or survival.
The defence of necessity is not available to
the accused who is charged for the wilful act
of homicide.
Hence, guilty. Sentenced to death which was
later commuted by the crown to just 6
months!
be disproportionate to the injury sought to be
averted but at the same time it should also be
remembered that if a man has real justification
to exercise his right of private defence, he
cannot be held liable if he slightly exceeds his
right. Such things cannot be weighted in
golden scales.
Phipson calls these as ‘burden of adducing
evidence’ and ‘burden of establishing a case.’
After the famous case of Woolmington the
law is well settled to the effect that except in
case of insanity under common law and under
statute law where a statute has cast the onus
upon the accused, in all other cases the
prisoner has not the persuasive burden.
To this extent of introducing reasonable
evidence of self-defence, provocation or
accident, the burden is on the accused. Even
this evidence he may not independently lead.

13. R v. Govinda And 18 year old idiot hits his 15 year
old wife repeatedly on the left eye
with closed fists which resulted in
extravasations (To force the flow of
(blood from a vessel out into
surrounding tissue) of blood to the
brain resulting in her death.
14. R v. Linekar The accused persuaded a prostitute
to have sexual intercourse with him
on a promise of payment. But he
refused to pay and she charged him
with rape.
15. Bajaj v KPS Gill A topmost official of State Police
indecently behaved with the senior
lady IAS officer in the presence of
gentry and in spite of her raising
objections continued with such
behaviour.
Name Facts
Elements of Criminal Liability
R v Tolson  Tolson married in 1880
 Husband deserted her in 1881
 Husband left for US.
He can take advantage of the prosecution
evidence itself for the purpose. So all that he
is required to do is either by evidence led by
him to that purpose or by evidence brought
on record by the prosecution itself he should
negative the evidential presumption or
discharge the evidential burden.
Read the one page judgment:
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/783074/
(Nicely gives the difference b/w CH and
murder).
Court of Appeal said: an essential ingredient
of the offense of rape is the proof that
woman did not consent to the actual act of
sexual intercourse with the particular man
who penetrated her. Here, she was fully aware
of the nature of the act and she could not say
that she was fully ignorant of sexual matters.
On these facts of such allegations it cannot be
said that the ignomity and trauma to which
she was subjected to was so slight that the
person of ordinary prudence and temper
would not complain about the same. Hence,
defence of triviality not available.
Judgement / Ratio
» Convicted. Appeal court - 1 day sentence.
» House of Lords quashed conviction by
majority 9-5
» Mistake of fact. Reasonable belief that he
  She looked for him with her father.
 Husband’s brother told her that
vessel had sunk and everybody
died.
 After 6 yrs, believing herself to be
a widow she married another man
in Jan.
 Husband returned in Dec.
 Prosecuted for Bigamy
R v. Wheat,  Poor and uneducated man asked a
R v. Stock solicitor to get him a divorce.
 They sent him telegram so that he
could sign some papers.
 He signed them and thought that
he was divorced.
 He married another woman.
 Prosecuted for Bigamy.
Sherras v. De Reutzen  A man was charged with supplying
liquor to a constable on duty
contrary to the licensing act.
R v. Prince  14 year old girl told Prince that she
was 18 yrs old.
 He took her out of the custody of her
parents reasonably believing that she
was 18.
was dead.
» No intention to marry during lifetime of
her first husband.
» Trial contention: He had reasonable
grounds to believe that he had obtained a
divorce and he had married 2nd time in
good faith.
» Convicted. He had intention of marrying
in the lifetime of first wife. He had
knowledge of first wife being alive and
that was enough for the statutory offence.
Thus different from R v. Tolson.
» R v. Tolson – Mistake of Fact
» R v. Wheat – Mistake of Law
» Mistake of fact as he had good grounds to
believe that the thulla was off duty.
» He did not knowingly serve the liquor.
» Also there is no mens rea
 CONVICTED under a statute making it
unlawful to take a girl below 16 yrs of
age out of possession of parents without
consent.
 Court accepted that he reasonably
believed her to be 18 yrs old and thus
had no mens rea.
 However, it is a statutory offence which
is silent about requirement of mens rea.

State of Maharashtra  On the night of the occurrence the
v. Mohd Yakub respondents carried in a truck and a
jeep silver ingots some of which were
concealed in a shawl, and some others
hidden in saw-dust bags from
Bombay to a lonely creek nearby and
that when the ingots were unloaded
near the creek the sound of the engine
of a mechanised sea-craft from the
side of the creek was heard by the
Customs officials and that therefore
they were guilty of attempting to
smuggle silver out of India.
 The respondents pleaded that they
were not aware of the presence of
silver ingots in the vehicles, that they
were only employed for driving the
jeep and the truck to another
destination and that the police
stopped them en route and had driven
them to the creek.
RAPE CASES
Tukaram v.  18 yr old Mathura was called to the
 Court cannot read into a statute such
requirement of requiring mens rea. Thus
he is convicted.
 Charged with attempt to smuggle silver
ingots which is offence under FERA and
Customs Act.
 Trial Court convicted. Sessions judge
acquitted saying they were in preparation
stage and fell short of attempt. HC
dismissed State’s appeal.
 SC Convicted the accused.
 Sarkaria : There is a distinction between
"preparation" and "attempt". Attempt
begins where preparation ends. In sum, a
person commits the offence of 'attempt
to commit a particular offence' when (i)
he intends to commit that particular
offence and (ii) he, having made
preparations and with the intention to
commit the offence, does an act towards
its commission; such an act need not be
the penultimate act towards the
commission of that offence but must be
an act during the course of committing
that offence.
In the instant case the respondents
carried silver ingots in the two vehicles
to the sea-shore and started unloading
them near a creek from which the sound
of the engine of a sea-craft was heard.
They did act of attempt.
» Sessions judge acquitted accused because
Maharashtra police station based on an abduction
report filed by her mother.
 Police constable Ganpat asked her to
stayback, took her to the toilet and
raped her.
 Another Constable called Tukaram
molested her but he was too drunk to
complete penetration.
 Both were on duty. They locked the
door and plunged it into darkness.

State of Maharashtra v  Two accused. Constable Prakash and
Prakash a businessman.
 Accused threatened that if woman did
not sign some papers, her husband
would be remanded in custody. Then
they took her to businessman’s house
and raped her.
R v. Doe  Husband went on fishing trip.
 Some person came to the wife when
she was asleep.
 She believed her husband had
returned and they began to have
intercourse.
 Halfway through she realised it was
not her husband and rand down the
stairs.
Chairman Railway  Writ Petition in Cal HC under Art 226
Board v. Chandrima against Chairman Railway Board by
Das Chandrima Das, an advocate on
behalf of Bangladeshi woman Haniffa
Khatun
 Haniffa Khatun was gangraped by
some Railway Employees in the Rail
she didn’t cry out for help and court said
there was tacit consent.
» Bom HC verdict - guilty. Tukaram of
molestation and Ganpat of rape.
» Because passive submission is not
consent.
» SC Held, No rape.
» She could have easily appealed to her
brother for help. There was no threat of
death or hurt to her. No marks of injury.
It was a peaceful affair.
» Constable was in uniform but on
bandobast duty.
» Woman was poor and rustic so she
believed that he had the power to arrest.
» She surrendered under duress.
» Therefore SC said it fell under 375(3)
and both were given 3 yrs of RI
» Guilty of rape
» False representation therefore accused
not allowed to take the defence that it
was a consensual act.
» Railway Board contended that she was a
foreigner and UoI or Railways should
not be held vicariously liable to pay
compensation for act of individuals.
» Railway contended that compensation
can only be claimed in a civil suit.
» SC: Right to life was guaranteed to
 Yatri Niwas Building.
 Rs. 10 lakh compensatition demanded
KM Nanavati v State  Nanavati was a Naval officer. He
of Maharashtra found out that his wife had sexual
relations with another person when he
was away.
 He dropped his wife and children to a
cinema.
 He went to the naval station withdrew
his weapon and went to his wife’s
paramour’s house and shot him dead.
 He then went to a police station and
surrendered.
Indus River Case  Deceased Allahdad along with a few
Mehboob Shah v. others was rowing downstream river
Emperor Indus to collect reeds
 They saw absconding accused’s father
(Mohd Shah) bathing
 Mohd Shah asked them not to collect
reeds from his property but they still
collected.
 Kasim Shah, nephew of Mohd Shah
accosted Allahdad
 Allahdad took a bamboo and hit
Kasim Shah
 Kasim shouted for help and Wali
everyone including foreigners.
» Since everyone is entitled to life with
dignity, Haniffa’s Art 21 right is violated.
State is under constitutional liability to
compensate.
» No sovereign immunity for railway
which is commercial activity.
» Defence lawyer argued that he was
provoked by the knowledge of the illicit
affair
» Court rejected the defence.
» Grave and sudden provocation is a
defence if an act is committed in the heat
of the moment upon being provoked.
» Much time had passed since he came to
know.
» He did several intervening act.
» His act thus premeditated and is culpable
homicide amounting to murder
» Mehboob Shah was sentenced to 7yr RI
by trial court for attempt to murder.
» Lahore HC on appeal convicted him for
murder under 302 r/w 34. LHC
sentenced him to death.
» Privy Council allowed appeal since no
evidence or no circumstances exist to
show that this is an act done in
pursuance of a concerted plan.
» Section 34 IPC cannot be invoked as it is
not done in furtherance of common
intention.
 Shah came running along with
Mehboob Shah
 Wali Shah took a loaded pistol and
shot Allahdad
 Mehboob Shah fired his pistol and
caused slight injuries to Hamidullah
who was Allahdad’s friend
 WaliShah absconded.
DPP v. Beard  13 yr old girl went grocery shopping » He took the defence of drunkenness.
 A watchman raped her and she » Court rejected the defence.
shouted for help » None can gather a cloak of immunity by

 He smothered the girl to death claiming to be intoxicated and voluntary

drunkenness is no answer to a criminal
charge.