LEGAL CONCEPTS 1. Legal rights 2. Ownership 3. Possession 4. Persons 5. Titles 6. Liability 7. Law of property 8. Law of obligation 9.

Law of procedure

4th March, 2010 Salmond – Legal right has 5 characteristics: 1. Legal right is vested in a person who may be distinguished as na owner of the right and he is the person of inherence. 2. Availed against a person who has a correlative duty. He may be distinguished as the person bound as the subject of duty or person of incidence. 3. Obliges a person bound to act or omission in favour of the person entitled. This may be termed as the content of the right. 4. The act or omission relates to something which may be termed as the object/ subject matter of the right. 5. Every legal right has a title – reason of the title the right becomes vested in the owner. Every right involves a three fold relation in which the owner stands: 1. Right against person or persons 2. Right of act or omission of such person or persons 3. Right over something to which that act or omission remains. LEGAL RIGHTS IN THE WIDER SENSE (Ruscoe Pound) Legal right may be defined as any advantage or benefit conferred upon a person by the virtue of law.

Jural correlatives Concept 1. Rights (strict sense) 2. Liberties 3. Power 4. Immunity Correlative - duty - no right - liability - disability

Legal rights are essentially external recognition and administration by law and belong to the science of law rather than law and are a complete idea. It may mean the legally recognized and delineated human wants and demands and by some conceptions by which the recognized interests are given form in order to be served by a legal order. Ruscoe Pound – Volume 6 Distinguished by the sovereign itself.

4th March, 2010 Right (strict sense) ↨ Duty Power (diagonals) Liability Jural Opposites/Correlatives ↨ - Jural correlatives – ‘is the presence of in another’ Diagonal arrows – Jural contradictions – ‘is the absence of in oneself’ ↔ - ‘is the absence of in another’ Hohfeld – uses claim instead of right. First rectangle represents static legal relationship. Second rectangle represents changing relationships. Categorisation not found in general law but in transactions: Disability ↔ (diagonals) ↔ Impunity Liability (no duty) ↨ No Right

Perfect Right 2. Law of limitation. 4. Eg. Eg. Imperfect right may be a good ground of defence though not a good ground of action. 3. Claims brought by the lapse of time – claims which cannot be enforced for want of special evidence – claims against foreign state/ sovereign. Rights and duties are imperfect as no action lies for their maintenance. Imperfect rights – Rights which are not perfect in nature. 2.1. It is improper to speak of A having a privilege vis-a-vis B unless it can be shown that B has no right to prevent the exercise. A person’s freedom is an expression of a claim that he may do something against another person to change his legal position. As a person’s right is an expression of a wish (claim) that other person against whom right/ claim is expressed has a duty to obey his claim. It is improper to speak of A as having immunity as against B unless it can be shown that B is under a disability with respect to the same subject matter. Imperfect Right A perfect right is one that corresponds to a perfect duty. 3. A person’s inability is an expression of a wish that another person cannot alter the person’s legal position. It is improper to speak of a right inherent in A towards B unless it can also be said that B has a duty. A perfect duty is one which is not merely recognized by law but also enforced by law. . Simplification: 1. A person’s power is an expression of a claim that he can alter other person’s legal position. 2010 KINDS OF LEGAL RIGHTS – Salmond 1. 6th March. It is improper to speak of A as having a power against B unless A’s exercise of power involves the imposition of liability over B. 2. 4.

there is no necessity for outside help. Differences: 1. Real rights → Against the entire world. the relations is immediate. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE RIGHTS Positive right corresponds to the positive duty and entails its owner to have something done for him without the performance of which his enjoyment of the right is imperfect and incomplete. the relationship between subject and object is immediate and the object is attained by the help of others. REAL AND PERSONAL RIGHTS Similar to negative and positive rights 8th March. 4. Satisfaction of the positive right results in the betterment of the position of the owner and in negative rights the position of the owner is maintained as it is. Personal rights → Against specific persons. Right to reputation – Real right. majority of negative rights are against the entire world. 3. 2. It corresponds to the negative duty of all others not to interfere. In the case of positive rights. Therefore. 2010 Salmond – Real rights correspond to duty imposed on persons in general and personal rights correspond to duty imposed on determinate persons. In case of positive rights. In case of negative rights. Right to compensation – Personal right . Right of action lies dormant. others are restrained from doing something.Imperfect right is sufficient to support any security that has been given for it and an imperfect right becomes perfect. The right of the first possessor to quiet enjoyment is a negative one. In the case of negative rights. Negative rights have negative duties corresponding to them and enjoyment is complete unless interference takes place. the person subject to the duty is bound to do something.

Real right is nothing more than the right to be left alone – merely a right to their passive noninterference. What duties can be expected of the entire world are of a negative character. Proprietary rights possess not only judicial but also economic importance whereas personal rights have only judicial importance.Real rights are more important that personal rights as they are available against the entire world. Eg. They are the elements of wealth of a man whereas the personal rights are only the elements of well being. General power of appointment. RIGHT IN REM AND RIGHT IN PERSONAM Derived from actio in rem and actio in personam In rem – Real right In personam – Personal right Jus in rem Jus in personam Every right is at the same time one in respect to a thing as well as against the entire world. Eg. Duty of fulfilling a contract – i) purchase of goods (proprietary right) . Real right – relation to the thing Personal right – relation to other persons who owe a duty Right in rem – available against all persons Right in personam. Proprietary rights include accessory rights as well. Purchase of goodwill – Personal and negative right. Proprietary rights do not apply to rights in strict sense but other kinds of rights also. 2010 PROPRIETARY AND PERSONAL RIGHTS Proprietary estate – estate Proprietary rights always involve some monetary value. No person can have a legal right to the active assistance of the entire right. – duty imposed upon determinate persons 9th March.

. INHERITABLE AND UNINHERITABLE RIGHTS Inheritable – when it ______ its owner Uninheritable – right dies with the owner Inheritance – in term of title 10th March. Two caveats: 1. destroy or alienate the thing (forward liberties). To build upon your land to injury of others Owner will have the right to possess the thing which he owns.ii) manage (personal right) Status of a person – Personal right True test for proprietary rights – not whether it can be alienated but whether it is equivalent to money – a right to receive money or something which itself can be turned into money is a proprietary right. and unlimited in the point of duration over a determinate thing.e. unrestricted in point of disposition. Incidence of ownership: i) ii) iii) iv) v) 2. 2010 OWNERSHIP 1. Use of property to injure neighbours 2. rights in rem. Ownership consists of a complex of rights i. Ownership has the characteristic of being indeterminate in duration. Salmond Ownership denotes the relation between person and objecvt forming the subject matter of his ownership. Owner normally has the right to use and enjoy the thing owned. Ownership has a residuary character. Austin Ownership means a right indefinite in point of user. The owner has the right to consume.

Immunities But can be curtailed by: 1. Ownership exists as long as the thing owned exists.Attributes: 1. Ownership is needed to give effect to the idea of mine and not mine or thine. The way in which the ownership arises differ in different legal systems. there is no need of ownership. 2010 3. 2. Unrestricted in point of disposition – right to dispose of the property. 11th March. Dias Does not give any incidence of ownership. Duties 2. Liberties 3. SUBJECT MATTER OF OWNERSHIP . An owner may be divested of his claim to such an extent that he may be left with no practical benefit. Ownership as a right consists of: 1. Powers 4. Without society. Disabilities The claims which comprises the content of ownership may be vested in persons other than the owner. therefore incidence of ownership is determined by law determining the rights and interest of the persons to whom the law ascribes ownership. Claims 2. Indefinite in point of user – owner may use property in any way subject to the two caveats. 3. Liabilities 3.

Eg. Trust and Beneficial Ownership Trust – no co-ownership but there are two persons involved i. May not be applicable in present day concept of ownership due to restrictions on ownership. CLASSIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP 1. Legal and Equitable Ownership Legal ownership – ownership having its origin in common law Equitable ownership – that which proceeds from rules of equity divergent from rules of common law 5. b) A person may take or make a thing to become a owner. patents or copyrights. Partners in a firm 3. Eg.e. Vested and Contingent Ownership Ownership is vested when its title is perfect – absolute Contingent ownership – title can become perfect on fulfilment of conditions . the trustee and the beneficiary. Ownership also includes interests one may have. Corporeal or Incorporeal Ownership Corporeal ownership – ownership in a physical object Incorporeal ownership – right/ interest in an intangible object Distinction – lies between corporeal and incorporeal things Corporeal things – felt and perceived by senses Incorporeal things – cannot be felt or perceived by senses 2. Shares. Estate tax. Whenever a thing is to be owned.Salmond – Subject matter of ownership – consists of material objects like land or chattel. Sole and Co-ownership Sole ownership – ownership vested in one person Co-ownership – ownership vested in many – undivided interest. Eg. there are two ways to do so: a) A stature might provide that a property after sometime may devolve to a person. Trustee cannot be the beneficiary – no right of beneficial ownership Beneficial ownership – enjoyment over the property Restricted to public trusts 4.

Possession is capable of various meaning .u take it in your hand and u are examining it – hence. IDEA OF POSSESSION a) Paton .6. Absolute and Limited Ownership Absolute ownership – when all the incidence are imposed by law and complete and imposed without restrictions Limited ownership – when incidence is subject to restrictions 12th is both legal and non legal concepts.When u go to a jewellery store and the shopkeeper gives u a gold ring to examine . u are in custody of the ring which is a non-legal concept here. clothing etc and therefore. men have to possess them – admits that the concept of possession is difficult to define and at the same time it is not purely a legal concept as possession is independent of and prior to that of law . POSSESSSION IN FACT AND POSSESSION IN LAW . 2010 POSSESSION 1. A customer examining a ring in the presence of the jeweller. 2. “Custody and detention are non-legal concepts of possession” . The concept of possession may vary from one system of law to another system depending on the social policy underlining that system of law. b) Salmond – Possession is the most basic relationship between men and things as men require basic essentials of food. Custody is a relation of relative possession where the holder either lacks full control or else has no animous to exclude others – Eg.lacks uniform approach – created various legal relations – prima facie evidence of ownership – he who disturbs possession must show either title or a better possessory right – defines – “possession is a root of title” and all possession is regarded as just till it is shown to be otherwise.

Possession in fact – Denotes that something is in one’s control – direct and indirect control – direct control means that one has custody of the thing whereas indirect control means when that thing is lying somewhere and one has the power to regain or retain it – no temporary relinquishment of power to retain or regain – there are a variety of situations where possession of fact depends on the intention of the possessor as to how he wants to possess the thing – eg. . Fitzergrald says this classification is impracticable as they are associated with the quantity of intention. Salmond considers possession in fact in two elements: i) Corpus possessionis – it comprises both the power to use the thing possessed and the existence of grounds for the expectation that the possessor’s use will not be interfered with. U own a small thing which u can hold in your hand. Eg for a baby of one day old or for a person in coma. u have an animal and u cage it. we are unable to identify the intention aspect. Possession in law – Means that the possessor has been given rights by law to keep the thing in possession without interference by others – right in rem supported by right in personem against those who violate the possessor’s primary rights and includes right to recover compensation for interference for disposition of the right to restore his possession – the law can protect possession by criminal and civil sanctions “Possession in fact and possession in law go hand in hand” – a person’s possession in an article which he finds lying around – it is a possession in fact and possession in law till the owner is found – A pickpocketer is in possession of the thing pickpocketed in fact and also in law with reference to other people except the owner. ii) Animus possessindi – Consists of an intent to appropriate to oneself the exclusive use of thing possessed. u have a house but u are away from it – all these are possessions in fact.

To acquire possession of a thing it is necessary to exercise such physical control as the thing is capable of and to evince an intention to exclude others. title to it as against those who have no claim to it prior to his. 5. The owner and possessor of the land may not be in personal possession of a thing on his land even though he owns them. another person not on the land may be in possession of them. As between two or more persons who are in apparent physical control and enjoyment of the use of chattels. The owner or possessor of a shop is not in personal possession of a thing on the floor of his shop until he knows of their presence there. it depends on the knowledge of the taker of the nature of the thing acquired. ‘A’ finds a chattel who finds it in the course of employment. The finder of a lost chattel obtains possession of it and hence. A possessor of land possesses everything attached to or under the land and things lying loose on the land are not in the possession of the landowner but fall into the possession of the first finder if he is lawfully on the land. In case of a personal possession of a thing. the owner of the chattel is in possession of them. The owner of a house who may have been in possession of the house for the purpose of taking action against the trespasser may not be in personal possession of a thing found on the premises if he has never physically occupied the house. 2. 7. 2010 INCIDENTS OF POSSESSION (PATON) – MEDIATE AND IMMEDIATE 1. THEORIES OF POSSESSION . 6. 3. 8.Discussion – e-Courts 16th March. 4. it is not acquired whenever a mere physical control is taken. 9. does not obtain possession of it.

he could acquire ownership on the expiration of the necessary period of time. Pledge. Since the possessor has to exert physical control over the thing. Eg. This theory is imperfect. Savigny’s Theory (Historical School) Possession consists of two elements: i) ii) Corpus possessionis – physical control Animus domini – intention with which such control is exercised. Possession in Roman Law Possession is regarded as a matter of fact. The possessor is having two practical advantages: i) ii) He could ask in cases of dispute through the magistrate to protect his possession.1. There are certain areas where this does not apply. 3. animus domini is all the more important to keep physical control to hold the thing as against others. If the possessor could show good faith and good cause. Divides the concept of possession into: i) ii) Possession naturalis Possession civilis Major exponent was a jurist Paul. 2. Jhering’s Theory .

Animus possidendi – Intent to appropriate to oneself the exclusive use of the thing possessed. Incorporeal possession – Possession of rights. It is in line with the Roman theory. To get possession a man must stand in certain physical relation to the object and to the rest of the world and must have . A man possesses who is. animus being merely an intelligent consciousness of the fact. Two other categories: i) ii) Corporeal possession – Mere physical possession of an object. Holme’s Theory It is rested on Savigny’s theory.He put forward a more objective theory. Whenever a person looked like a owner in relation to a thing he had possession of it unless possession was denied to him by special rules based on practical convenience. in the position in which an owner of such thing ordinarily is. He talked of two elements: i) ii) Corpus possessionis – Power to use the thing possessed and the existence of grounds for the expectation that the possessors use will not be interfered with. Holmes believed that there are very few facts needed to constitute possession than to acquire it. He says that corpus and animus are possessions by themselves and are simply conditions for acquiring possession. in relation to the thing. 5. 4. Dias criticizes this. Persons who hold property would be owners in majority of cases and possession was attributed to them as an incident of ownership. Salmond’ Theory Concentrates on Possession in Fact and Possession in Law.

This relations and the intent are the facts of which one should search of in cases of possessions. lunatics etc. . This idea is found right from the Roman law period. Natural persons i.certain intent. This concept was put forward by Grey in his book Nature and Sources of Law. Institutions like municipalities. the human beings are legal persons simpliciter. 6. 2010 PERSONS Persons are human beings who are capable of thinking and making choices. duties and liabilities. Now we give personality to even corporations and companies. Pollock’s Theory De facto control and physical control with general intent is sufficient to constitute possession. 2. However.e. The Ethical Natural Law Philosopher alongwith the Metaphysical School – Will is an essential requirement for exercising a legal right and hence personality is the subjective possibility of a rightful will. companies were attributed with these capacities of right. bailor-bailee etc. The Analytical jurisprudence by way of fiction included unborn child. de facto control cannot be explained in cases of relationships like master-servant. The autonomy of human being and the capacity to take decisions make him the subject of legal person and his subject of rights. Dias has criticized this. There are certain schools of law who have this idea of giving personality: 1. He says that it is a very generalized theory. 17th March.

The jurists say animals cannot be legal persons as they do not have rights and duties. legal personality is an artificial creation of law and entities recognized by the law are capable of being parties to legal relationships. They have the right of a decent burial and anything otherwise would be an offence. In custom we find that even animal can owe property. He divides persons into: i) Natural – Human beings ii) Legal – Beings which are real or imaginary who for the purpose of legal reasoning are treated in greater or lesser degree as human beings. He has a right over his reputation and any defamation would harm his rights. like in some regions in Rajasthan. cruelty to animals is an offence. Unborn child/ Child in a mother’s womb – They can have rights. However. Lower animals .Animals are not recognized by law as appropriate subject matter of rights and duties and liabilities.Thus. There are public rights vested in the community for the welfare of animals. a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties. 3. Before birth they can have a share in the property. This is found mainly in coparcenary system. No animals can be the owner of any property even through the instrument of trust. There are essential duties created for the welfare of animals. but the same can be created for a class of animals. A dead man can regulate the disposition of property and to decide who gets to enjoy his property. Hence they have some rights. they have rights over their body. reputation and estate. For a single animal a trust cannot be created. 3. If injured. A child in the womb has the right not to be injured. He has a right over his estate. Dead man – They do not have legal personality as they lose the capacity of enforcing rights and liabilities. These beings are often termed as fictitious. But an individual animal cannot own property. However. in the present day. STATUS 1. it will be taken as an offence. artificial or moral. . De moritus mil nisi bonum – A dead man lives through his descendants. 2. juristic. Salmond – So far as legal theory is concerned.

But we give a legal will to that entity. The property of a company is different from the property of its shareholders. postmaster general etc. fiction is purely a formation of abstracts. municipalities. The debts and liabilities of a company cannot be attributable to its members. Neo-colonization and Bioprospecting. Savigny says that there is no reality at all. Registered company. Solicitor of a treasury. 2010 THEORIES OF JURISTIC PERSONALITY 1. . there is always a fiction of attributing will of another to another or to some other than himself.4. the North-South Debate 18th March. FICTION THEORY (Salmond + Savigny + Grey + Wolff) Salmond says that the moment we give personality to a company we give rights. Corporations – Corporation sole (one man at a time. found only when his successee comes to constitute single permanent legal person. It is the formation of an abstract entity to which will of men may be attributed.) and corporation aggregate (when there are several members at a time. Further. Protection of Traditional Knowledge: National and International Perspectives – Globalization. liabilities and duties to that entity. eg. Their existence is imaginary. Grey points out that except in the case of normal human being. Thus a person is assumed to be of purely juristic personality. and thus we give a legal personality to that entity. state governments). improvement trusts. eg. legal capacity is considered as extended to artificial subjects admitted by means of a pure fiction.

Wolff has given certain advantages of fiction theory: i) ii) iii) It is a theory of law and is analytically preferred It is more elastic than other theories It makes it easier to disregard juristic personality in cases where it is desirable. As the organized groups like corporations. if any type of human beings were not so recognized. It is something by way of privilege ascribed to a group to be recognized as a juristic person and is nearer to fiction theory in concerning the personality. namely the unity of spirit. They have duties. The reality is physical. from this point of view. and have a real life. THE CONCESSION THEORY It assumes that associations are creations of the state and law is the only source from which legal personality may flow. purpose. through giving them rights and duties. we find that person is called corpus. The realist theory bills on the concept that groups or associations when recognized by law become a legal . GROUP PERSONALITY/ THE REALIST SOCIOLOGICAL VIEW – Gierke (Historical and Sociological School) A group has a real mind. 3. They have a group will different from individual members. Law determines what shall be regarded as juristic entity. In Roman law also. 2. the polity would not be regarded nowadays as one rule of law. They have heads and organs. ORGANISM THEORY It stresses that once groups are organized they correspond biologically to human beings. The conceptions of social organism of these groups are not imaginary but in reality. a real will and a real power of action. interest or organisation. are alive. Further. 4.

6. 7. It cannot be applied to Anglo-American or Indian situations. Juristic person is nothing but a special form in which the members manifest their relations of right and law with the outside world. Corporations stand sue generis. They believe that the group is a living organism and a real person with body members and a will of its own. The members of the group are bracketed together to treat them as a unit. It itself can will. However.reality and juristic personality. There is a clear distinction between the properties. The function of the realist theory is to confer widest power on the groups or corporations when registered or incorporated. Pollock and Dicey. As human beings are capable of having rights. HOHFELD’S THEORY Juristic persons are certain creations of arbitrary rules of procedure. duties. But the real and only persons are its members. duties of the company and its members. juristic person is a symbol in helping to giving effect to the purposes of that group. powers and liabilities. THE BRACKET THEORY – Jhering Members of an incorporated association are considered bearers of rights. This theory will find application in cases of lifting of the corporate veil in cases of fraud or tax evasion. Favoured by Maitland. 2010 5. KELSEN’S THEORY . itself can act and it wills and acts by the men who are its organs as a man wills and acts by brain. they can sue and can be sued. This theory is a restricted approach. 19th March. any group or association to which the law ascribes juristic personality is merely a procedure for working out the legal rights and jural relations and postponing for future the details of the procedure which ultimately determines the rights of human beings involved in such juristic persons. Group personality is collectivisation of mass of individual rights. rights. mouth and hand and it is a group person and it is a group will.

This is the only approach for a pure science of law and has the advantage of ending the tiresome and futile arguments concerning the psychological and philosophical nature of group personality. Criminal liability is the liability to be punished in criminal proceedings. There may be instances where the liability may be both civil and criminal. More or less arbitrarily the law individualises certain parts of the legal order and establishes a certain unity in the rights and obligations pertaining to it but this is only a technical means of securing facility of procedure for all that is real consist of rights of human individuals. 2010 LIABILITIES Salmond Liability or responsibility is the bond of necessity that exists between the wrongdoer and the remedy of the wrong. . Civil liability gives rise to civil proceedings whose purpose is the enforcement of certain rights claimed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Specific performance. He classifies the kinds of liability and these were further added to by the courts of jurisprudence: 1. Civil and Criminal Liability Civil liability is the enforcement of the right of the plaintiff against the defendant in civil proceedings. Eg. Debate: Feminist Jurisprudence – Political Sphere 22nd March.There is no difference between the legal personality of a company and that of an individual. a focal point of imputation which gives a unity to certain complexes of rights and duties. Personality in the legal sense is only a technical personification of a complex form of norms. realisation of debt.

Punishment is of four kinds. In criminal liabilities. Civil liability is measured by the magnitude of the wrong done.How to measure liabilities? In civil liabilities damage has to be imposed. The force of law can be used to compel a person to do what he ought to do. 2. VICARIOUS LIABILITY Master-servant Legal representatives liable for the acts of the dead man 5. character of the offender. Therefore. 4. STRICT OR ABLOLUTE LIABILITY . Hence there has to a quantification of liabilities. PENAL LIABILITY Penal liability is concerned with punishment of law. there is no idea of punishment. In criminal liability we take into consideration the motive. the latter should see to it that it is performed. It can arise from criminal as well as civil proceedings. magnitude of the offence etc. There are three exceptions to the principle that a man must be forced to do by law what he should be do by rule of law: i) ii) iii) In the case of breach of an imperfect duty – time barred debt In cases where duties are impossible of specific enforcement – libel or defamation In cases where specific enforcement of duty is inadmissible – a promise of marry 3. we do not see the magnitude of the wrong done. intention. Remedial Liability If a duty is created by law.

Causation implicitly recognises number a factors which may be responsible for an offence. Acts done in sleep or under hypnosis are involuntary acts. it is said to consist of a willed muscular contraction which incurs moral or legal liability only by virtue of the circumstance in which it is committed or the consequence which it produced. Involuntary are those which are beyond man’s control. A man will generally be held criminally liable only for the consequences of his conducts as he foresaw. 2010 2. All acts should be voluntary to constitute actus reas which may amount to an offence. He beats him and does not give him food for some days. In case of true voluntary act. Section 32. 33 of IPC. An omission on the other hand will attract liability as it consists of not performing an act which was expected to be performed by law. Can we say A is guilty of murder? Acts may be voluntary or involuntary. Causation of crime (Hart) – Instead of investigating whether the defendant’s act was he act will be such that will lead to the causatthe cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. A man is said to commit an actus reas if the actus cannot occur without his participation. A has an infant brother. The brother dies. Eg. Direct and indirect causation must be taken into account. 23rd March.An accident which may be culpable or inevitable Negligence In cases where law requires standard of care which needs to be taken GENERAL CONDITIONS OF LIABILITY 1. . Act (Salmond) – It is a conscious movement and a conduct which results from the operation of will. they should inquire whether the defendant ought to be held responsible which could be answered according to the policy and without regard to the conceptual difficulties inherent in the notion of the crime.

the establishment of the nexus between the act and the offence is not difficult to perceive. However it does not provide an analysis of the concept as applied by the lawyers and the courts. A intends to kill B and he shoots at him but slightly injures him. Mens Rea – Actus non facit reum mens sit rea. In cases of post-mortem. A had the mens rea but there was just an attempt to murder. Eg. He dies. the law first satisfies two things: . A has mens rea but he is guilty of only attempt to murder. In such cases. intended consequences are not too remote. B refuses to take any treatment and dies. the law’s choice between factor A and factor B are to be related to the actual happening. one of these factors has to be chosen as the cause. Second. A intends to kill B and he shoots at him but slightly injures him. First. whether B was killed from the injury afflicted by A or because of the disease. B has a rare blood disease where the blood does not coagulate. Now suppose a man is stabbed. 3. In such cases the common sense of causation does not apply. B is taken to hospital in an ambulance. Thus fixing of causation in criminal cases is a complex one. In criminal law for assigning liability. Abatement. He is brought to the hospital. it is evidence which has to establish the occurrence of causes. Only a post mortem can decide the causation of the death. it serves to investigate as to the cause of the death. the common sense of causation does not apply.(Salmond) – It is important to decide question of causation before imputing liability. While going to the hospital. Because of this would B dies. Examples: i) A intends to kill B and he shoots at him but slightly injures him. When acts are direct and simple. Causation is often based in the common sense of cause. ii) iii) Causation in terms of sequencing of events takes many forms. He is given an antibiotic injection. There is a strong reaction to the antibiotic in his blood. Fourth. some debris falls on the ambulance and A dies. Causal investigation involves both explanatory and attributive enquiry. when some events have happened to form a combination of factors. Causation can also be indirect. Here causal investigation will decide the liability of A. Third.

the design was not there. It is an unintentional act. but his intention causes wrongful loss. A sets fire to a house and wants to rob the house. Whether an act is termed to be intentional or unintentional depends partly on the description of the act itself. By mistake. A person disregards traffic signal through forgetfulness. . He goes out in night. B was killed. 4. In this case. An unintentional act is one lacking such purpose or design.i) An act has been done which by reason of its harmful tendencies or results is fit to be repraised by way of penal discipline. Sometimes. ii) The mental attitude of the doer towards the deed was such as to render punishments if it acts as a deterrent in future and thereof just. he shot it at the time of testing. But intention is not identical with desire. There is no intention in this case. There was someone inside and he was killed. Intention (Salmond) – it is the purpose of design with which an act is done or to perform some further act to bring about certain consequences and so on. drives a vehicle and kills a pavement dweller. Examples: i) ii) iii) iv) A purchases a gun to kill B who is his neighbour. Are motive and intention the same? A person may act from a laudable motive. He kills a person walking on the zebra crossing. A person has a disease of sleepwalking. it can be explained as a combination of foresight or desire. There is no intention. His crime is complete irrespective of the motive. The form of mens rea will depend on the provisions of the particular legal system.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful