Posts

Showing posts with the label Section 36 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS)

Section 45 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS),2023

-
Section 45 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS),2023 45. A person abets the doing of a thing, who— (a) instigates any person to do that thing; or (b) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (c) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration. A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Section 36 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS),2023

-
Section 36 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS),2023 36. 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 mental illness 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 mental illness, 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.
Post a Comment
Read more