Section 84 ipc. Detailed Analysis of Section 84 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 2023-01-05
Section 84 ipc Rating:
8,6/10
1914
reviews
Grant and Lee: A Study in Contrasts
Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee are two of the most well-known and highly respected military leaders in American history. Both men played crucial roles in the American Civil War and are remembered for their strategic brilliance and leadership skills. However, despite their shared profession and similar circumstances, the two men had very different backgrounds, personalities, and approaches to leadership. This essay will explore the contrasts between Grant and Lee, examining their differences in upbringing, military experience, and leadership style.
One of the most striking contrasts between Grant and Lee is their background and upbringing. Grant was born in Ohio in 1822 and grew up in a middle-class family. He attended West Point and graduated near the bottom of his class, but he excelled as a soldier, serving in the Mexican-American War and rising through the ranks of the U.S. Army. Lee, on the other hand, was born into a wealthy and influential Virginia family and was educated at West Point, where he excelled academically and was well-respected by his peers. He also served in the Mexican-American War, but his career in the U.S. Army was much shorter than Grant's, as he resigned his commission in 1831 to become a plantation owner and engineer.
In terms of military experience, Grant and Lee also had some significant differences. Grant served in the U.S. Army for many years before the Civil War, gaining valuable experience in a variety of different roles and environments. He was known for his tenacity and ability to adapt to changing circumstances, and he was not afraid to take risks or make difficult decisions. Lee, on the other hand, had relatively little combat experience before the Civil War, and he relied more on his theoretical knowledge and careful planning. He was known for his caution and his ability to anticipate and respond to his opponents' moves, but he was also criticized for being too slow to act at times.
Finally, Grant and Lee differed in their leadership style and approach to command. Grant was known for being decisive and straightforward, and he was not afraid to delegate authority or trust his subordinates. He was also willing to accept responsibility for his mistakes and learn from them, which earned him the respect and loyalty of his troops. Lee, on the other hand, was more reserved and formal, and he was known for his attention to detail and his focus on the welfare of his men. He was a careful planner and was not prone to taking unnecessary risks, but he was also criticized for being too rigid and inflexible at times.
In conclusion, Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee were two of the most influential military leaders in American history, and they had many similarities in their background and profession. However, their differences in upbringing, military experience, and leadership style made them very different leaders, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Understanding these contrasts helps to shed light on the different strategies and approaches that these two men employed during the Civil War and the impact that they had on its outcome.
IPC(Cases Sec. 84) Notes
The threat meted out by the accused to the deceased showed that at the time of the commission of the crime, the accused did not lose his sense of understanding. Kalia Alias Debabrata Maharana: The accused murdered three people and wounded others, although no prior enmity or motive had been identified. This law till some extent has its basis in the maxim of Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, meaning that an act alone cannot hold a person guilty without a guilty intention. However, if the accused was under the delusion that he other will slander him and cause grievous hurt to his reputation, and then he kills him, that would be treated as a crime. The Judge is to dispense justice based upon what is provided inside court and not based upon his personal volition. An excusable act is the one in which though the person has caused harm, it is held that a person should be excused because he cannot be blamed for the act. Emerciano Lemos, A and accused В were brothers, and G was a neighbour and a distant relative.
Insanity: A Real defense or a loophole (Section 84 of IPC)
On the other hand, if the person did not know the nature of the act but knew that it is wrong as contrary to the law he is held responsible. Within a short span of six and a half months, soon after the incident, he had to be taken for treatment to the hospital twenty five times. It is a well-established principle of criminal law that there are basically 2 elements which are necessary to be established in order to prove him guilty for an offence which are namely Mens Rea guilty mind and Actus Reus wrong or unlawful Action. Even though Mc Naughten Rules continue to be in existence in England, a partial defence in the form of diminished responsibility has been introduced only for murder. The psychiatrist should document the date and time of assessment, demographic details, identification marks, and injuries on the body.
Answer 5 We think the medical man, under the circumstances supposed, cannot in strictness, be asked his opinion in the terms above, because each of those questions involves the determination of the truth of the facts deposed to which it is for the jury to decide, and the questions are not questions upon a mere matter of science, in which case such evidence is admissible. It was held that complete absence of motive or provocation, nature and multiplicity of weapons used, duration of the attack and the maniacal fury of the attack along with the subsequent conduct of the accused proved that he was acting under an insane impulse. Diagnosis Considering the nature of the assessment and law presumes everyone is sane unless the contrary is proved, it is prudent to start assessment in the same direction. The psychiatrist should enquire by asking open-ended questions to ascertain the defendant's knowledge of the law, the nature of his act, and also whether he is in a position to appreciate right and wrong. Robert Peel in mistake for the latter. Five questions were then presented to the Lords of Justice.
A debate ensued in the House of Lords with a view to strengthening the law. It must be proved that the insanity existed at the time of committing the act constituting the offence. This NIMHANS Detailed Workup Proforma for Forensic Psychiatry Patients-II is used in the Institute for many decades for semi-structured assessment of forensic psychiatric cases. Insanity Laws: The defense of insanity is used by the defense to save their clients from capital punishment. According to clause 1 of section 2 of this Act where a person kills or is a party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing. Where the criminal act is committed by a man under some insane delusion as to the surrounding facts, which conceals from him the true nature of the act he is doing, he will be under the same degree of responsibility as he would have been on the facts as he imagined them to be. A Court is only concerned with legal insanity, and not medical insanity.
First is that the medical and legal standards of sanity are not identical. But the main question behind this section is who is a sound person and who is unsound? What is given by Section 84, IPC, 1860 is the defence of legal insanity as distinct from medical insanity. Â Is misuse of Section 84 of the Act possible? State of Punjab: The accused tried to assault a person with a dagger. The accused had discharged his burden under section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get the benefit of section 84 of the Code. You can selectively provide your consent below to allow such third party embeds. The defence of insanity can be pleaded where the unsoundness of mind of the offender is to such an extent that he cannot understand the nature of the act or distinguish between what he is doing is right or wrong.
Detailed Analysis of Section 84 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
A comprehensive inquiry should be done into the history of presenting illness, history, family history, personal history, and premorbid personality. It would be prudent to ask the defendant to give a step-by-step account of his behavior, emotions, biological, occupational, and social functioning beginning 1-week before the offense and to be enquired till 1-week after the commission of the offense. Law only considers those aspects of insanity which deals with the cognitive faculties of the mind. A paranoid within moments may behave wildly and then be normal again. One interesting part in the case was that the accused had made a confessional statement that he had killed his wife in grave and sudden provocation which in effect meant an admission of intentional killing.
So, there is a need for incorporating wider concepts like emotions, preact situations etc. He was acquitted of the charges. So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. However, in order to assert the privilege of defending insanity in court, the defendant would have to show that at the time the crime was committed his cognitive skills were so affected that he did not realize the essence of the act. But in various ways the word insane has different meanings and reflects differing degrees of psychiatric illness.
Thus it can be said that the plea of insanity serves its purpose with a well-established legal system and hence protects the interests of the society at the same time. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not deal with the question of proof and its quantum to avail of the defence of insanity. If the evidence shows that the accused was conscious of nature, of the act, he must be presumed to have been conscious of its criminality. Intoxication also comes under the definition of unsound mind, although it might be temporary in nature. For one to take the defence of intoxication , it must be proven that it was involuntary and this can be distinguished from lunacy and idiocy because the latter is not due to any fault of the person himself but rather due to his circumstances or by birth, whereas drinking is a sin in the first place and even if a drunkard commits a crime, with the prerequisite that he is not able to judge the nature of his act or his cognitive abilities are so destroyed that he falsifies in construing the difference between right and wrong , he shall not be given the defence unless it is involuntary.
One day he killed his wife and the eldest son without any provocation. This session is a must watch for all the Law Pupils, Law and Judiciary Aspirants. For the purpose of criminal law, the emphasis is therefore on the degree of unsoundness of mind. This generated a lot of public sentiment and debate and the pressure was so much that ultimately the House of Lords had to constitute a special committee of its own judges to finalise the law relating to insanity. Mental Status and cognitive functioning assessment The mental status examination should be done without leading questions.
In Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. Many people believed that his story of delusion was a concoction and that the murder was a pure political assassination. He said he had an irrational delusion that the Prime Minister was the only cause behind all of his problems. State, the accused who had been suffering from periodic epilepsy since childhood attacked his defenceless mother with a billhook, wooden reaper and firewood stick causing her death. A person is called medically insane if he is suffering from any disease or disorder of the mind. Medical insanity is entirely dependent on medical grounds. A mentally unsound person is not punished for his crime, as he is devoid of free will, intelligence and knowledge of the act committed.
