TRESPASS TO PERSON

The wrongs which affect someone's personal safety and freedom is termed as 'trespass to person'. It can
be committed intentionally as well as negligently.

There are four forms of intentional trespass to the person-

1. Assault – any attempt or threat to carry out a physical attack upon another person
2. Battery- any unlawful physical contact inflicted by one person upon another without consent
3. Mayhem- form of battery where bodily injury is of that extent that a person is weakened in
fighting or in defending himself.
4. False Imprisonment- when a person imposes total restraint on someone’s free movement

Assault-

An assault is an unlawful attempt to do a bodily or corporeal hurt to another, coupled with an apparent
present ability and intention to do the act.

An act done by one person which causes, and is intended to cause, to another an apprehension of an
immediate and harmful or offensive touching or contact with his person is an assault.

These definite embodies the following essentials:

1. An intent to inflict a battery upon another person or to cause him an apprehension of battery
2. An act done for this purpose, as distinguished from mere violent or abusive language.
3. An apprehension of battery

Cases:

1. Stephens v Myers (1830)

In this case, the plaintiff was the chairman of a parish meeting. The defendant was somewhat
stubborn and vociferous, majority in the meeting was in favour of turning him out. On this
development the defendant said that he would rather pull the chairman out of the chair than be
turned out of the room. He, then advanced with his fist clinched towards the plaintiff, but was
stopped by a church warden who sat next to the plaintiff. He was held liable for assault.

The most important factor in assault is to carry out threat into effect. Physical impact is not
necessary. There should be some reasonable apprehension of immediate injury or violence to
the plaintiff.

2. Bavisetti Venkata Surya Rao v Nandipati Muthayya (1964)

The plaintiff was an agriculturist and Rs 11.60 was arrear in his name of land revenue. The village
munsif went to him to collect the land revenue but he showed his inability to pay. Munsif told
the plaintiff that if he becomes defaulter then his ear rings will be taken out and called a
goldsmith. When the goldsmith came, another person who was present there, paid the dues to
the Munsif. The court was of the view that it was not case of assault as after the arrival of
 goldsmith the defendant did not say anything or did anything to create an atmosphere of fear
and physical treat to the plaintiff.

Battery-
A harmful or an offensive, touching of the plaintiff's person, caused directly or indirectly by a
voluntary act of the defendant with an intention to inflict a harmful or an offensive touching, is a
battery.
Robert Goff L.J defined battery as meaning an intentional physical contact which was not
'generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life' in the case of Collins v Wilcock.

The two essential elements to constitute a battery-

(A) Hostile intent
(B) Use of force
(A) Hostile intent-
Intentional touching of another person in a hostile manner or against his will is a battery. But, if
the person who is not of sound mind, his hostile act may not be termed as battery. But, if the
defendant knows what he is doing is wrong then he can’t take the defence of incapacity or
lunacy.

Case : Morris v Marsden

In this case, the defendant was suffering from mental disease attacked plaintiff causing some
injury to him. The defendant knew the nature and quality of act but it was not known to him
that what he was doing was wrong. In an action for damages for the tort of battery it was held
that since the defendant knew the nature and quality of the tortious act, he was liable for
damages.

(B) Use of force-

There should be some physical touching but bodily contact is not necessary. It doesn’t matter
whether the force is applied directly to the human body itself or to do anything coming in
contact with it.
In order to establish the tort of battery, the plaintiff must however prove that the force was
used without any lawful justification.

Case : Pratap Daji v B.B & C.L Rly.,

The plaitniff entered a carriage on the defendant’s railway and forgot to purchase a ticket. At
next station, when he was asked to get out of the carriage again he refused at this also. Thenz
he was forcibly removed from the carriage. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for
action then the court observed that the use of force was justified. Since he was trespasser
(without holding a valid ticket to trvael in). Defendants were thus not held liable.

Defences against assault and battery-

 1. Expulsion of trespasser- if someone enters upon the property of another person without his
permission and doesn’t leave the place even after request then he can be evicted with force
As much as it is required and in such situation the force used is justified.
2. Lawful correction- assault and battery maybe justified. If it is used as corrective measures.
3. Retaking of Goods- if a person wrongfully takes possession of someone else’s property,
then the rightful person or someone authorizes to take care of owner’s property may
request to get his property back and if the wrongdoer refuses to give in then the owner or
authorised person may use reasonable force as he thinks fit for the situation.
4. Preservation of public peace- if someone is threatening the public peace or causing
nuisance at public worship place he can be checked from doing so with the help of using
reasonable force.
5. Statutory authority- if a legal authority is performing his duty and someone comes in
between and stops him from performing his duty the person maybe stopped with the use of
force.

Distinction between Assault and Battery-

Assault

1. Action which puts another person in instant fear of unlawful force.

2. Actual contact is not necessary
3. To throw water on someone is assault.
Battery
1. Use of unlawful force
2. Actual contact is necessary
3. To throw water on someone and if water drop falls on him then it is battery

False Imprisonment-

When a person imposes total restraint on someone’s free movement that is on the movement on one’s
own will then it is called as false Imprisonment. It is a tort of strict liability and the plaintiff has not to
prove fault on the part of the defendant. It can be in an open field or street.

Essentials of False Imprisonment-

1. There must be a total restraint on the liberty of the plaitniff

There detention of the person may either
A. Actual ie physical
B. Constructive ie by mere show of authority
2. The detention must be without any lawful justification

The period for which the detention continues is immaterial. But it must not be immaterial.

3. False Imprisonment-
A person can be held imprisoned without his knowledge. But, it is possible to hold captors liable
for imprisonment if it is not known to the imprisoned man that he is captive or being detained.

Case: Meeting v Graham White Aviation Co. Ltd.

A person, plaintiff, suspected of having stolen a keg of varnish from the shop of employers i.e
defendants. The employer asked the plaintiff to go with their policemen to the company’s office.
After reaching there, he was asked to wait in the waiting room while two policemen remained in
the neighbourhood. The defendants were held liable for false imprisonment. The defendant's
plea was that the plaitniff was free to go anywhere and he was knowing it but did not go
anywhere. But the court was not convinced and observed that the plaintiff from the moment
came under the influence of the police was no longer a freeman.

PARTIAL RESTRAINT-
In false imprisonment, there is total restraint on the liberty of a person and without justification.
But, if the wrong restraint on the liberty of a person is partial then it doesn’t come under false
imprisonment.

Case: Maharani of Nabha v Province of Madras

Under the government orders, the Ex Maharaja was restricted in his movements to the
municipal limits of Kodaikanal. The ex maharaja was going to Madras but the SP Madurai
wrongly informed that he was going with his family to Madras and issued direction to his
subordinates to stop Maharaja from leaving Kodaikanal. By mistake, the SI understood it as to
prevent Maharani from going to Madras. Maharani came with her daughter in a car to
Kodaikanal railway station to board a train for Madras. The SI told maharani not to board the
train and posted two policemen near the railway compound to prevent her car from being taken
out of the compound. A suit was filed.
The court held that the offences of wrongful confinement or restraint are offences affecting the
human body and cannot be said to have been committed if a person is not himself restrained or
confined but the liberty or going in the conveyance in which he wishes to go ke taking the article
which he wishes to caryy and without which he is not willing to proceed is denied to him.

DETENTION WITHOUT LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION-

For false imprisonment, it is necessary that there should be total restraint on liberty without any
lawful justification.

In Rudal Shah v State of Bihar-

The petitioner acquitted by the court in 1968 but released from the jail in 1982 i.e 14 years after
his acquittal from the case. The state pleaded that the petitioner remained in jail for his
treatment since he had some mental disorder. The plea of state was rejected by court and as an
ancillary relief, in a writ of habeas corpus by petitioner, the SC granted a sum of Rs 35000 as
compensation as an interim measure without precluding the Commissioner from claiming
further compensation.
In another case Kundan Lal v Dr. Des Raj,
The SP on an application moved by the surety, cancelled the bail bond and ordered the re arrest
of the plaintiff. On SP's order, sub inspector re arrested him. The court held that the SP had no
power to cancel the bail bond and order I’d rearrest was unlawful. Both SP and sub-inspector
were held liable for false imprisonment.

Remedies-
1. Self help
The person who is unlawfully detained needs to wait until he is released before seeking
redress. Self help is available for him to escape.

2. Habeas Corpus
Under Art 32 or 226, a person can move to SC and HC for the issue of Habeas Corpus if he
has been wrongfully detained.