North South University

Center of Excellence in Higher Education

Department of Law
Assignment

Name: RAKIB HASAN TALUKDER

  ID: 191040011
Course: Law of crimes

Submitted to: NASMIN JABIN NOOR (NJN)

Lecturer
Department of Law
Submission date: 23/08/2021
Issue: Whether Tom did any voluntary act or not? Whether he had committed any crime
or not? Whether he acted negligently or not? Whether he had the knowledge or not? Whether
the property is moveable or not? Whether he had done any mischief or not? Whether the
incident was misfortune or accidental or not?

Rules: According to Article 39 of the Criminal Law, voluntariness refers to acts carried
out deliberately. According to Article 441, trespassing refers to entering into the property of
another person with the intent to commit a crime. According to section 378, theft refers to the
dishonest intention to take any personal property from anyone without the consent of another
person. According to Articles 425 and 436, anyone knowingly may cause damage in any
place normally used as a place of worship or human residence or place, and use fire or any
explosive substance to cause damage. The custody of the goods will be sanctioned.
According to Article 80, any crime committed by accident or misfortune does not constitute a
crime.

Analysis: We know that to hold someone responsible for any crime, there must be
Actus reus. Actus reus is basically a Latin term meaning "guilty act". So this means that if
he/she does a guilty act, then he/she will only commit a crime. Here, Actus reus must be a
volunteer. From Tom’s case, we learned that he voluntarily broke into the church at night.
According to Article 39 of the Criminal Law, voluntary means intentional omission. Here,
Tom caused it by the way he intended to cause it, or by the way he knew or had reason to
believe that might cause it when using these methods. So it proves that Tom broke into the
church voluntarily. Your intention to do this is correct. 13 ADC (2016) page 167 Dr. Motiour
Rahman vs. Status. What is missing is the second race of Actus reus. Not participating in any
behavior that causes harm or leads to another crime is considered a voluntary choice.
Although Tom went to church and stole silverware, he set fire to his negligence. We also
know that this term is sometimes referred to as "the doctrine of incidental failure." It means
that if you know or should know that you have caused a dangerous situation, and you do not
take any measures to prevent related damages, you may be held criminally responsible. In
this case, when Tom went to steal something, a fire broke out. Tom saw it and took no action
to postpone it and somehow left this place. The fire was Tom's fault, he knew it could cause
serious damage to the church, but he did nothing. He is responsible for this behavior. This is a
case in R v Miller (1982). In this case, the defendant squatted in the building. He lay on the
mattress, lit a cigarette, and fell asleep. Several times later, he woke up to find that the
mattress was on fire. He did not try and fell asleep again, severely damaging the house. This
situation is very similar to Tom's. The fire was their fault, but they did not try to put out the
fire.

Not only this Tom also committed a crime. Under section 441, any person who enters another
person's property with the intention of committing a crime is called trespassing. In this case,
Tom broke into the illegally invaded church building. Although it was not an offense to enter
the church, Tom went there at night for theft. He planned to steal the church silverware,
which he believed was stored in a room near the front of the church. Although Tom wanted to
steal the silverware from the church, he didn't. However, he committed the crime because he
did so voluntarily for legitimate robbery intentions. Article 441 clearly establishes that
intention is the most important element extracted from the facts and circumstances of the
case.
Mens Rea is also a basic element to prove a crime. It is also a Latin term that means "guilty
thinking". In other words, what was the defendant's state of mind and what were the
defendant's intentions at the time of the crime. These two words are used to describe a
person's state of mind. These are specific intentions and general intentions. In this case, Tom
has a clear and direct intention to go to church to steal silverware. With this intention, he
broke into the church. Show that you have bad intentions. On the other hand, when we talk
about criminal intent, we often mention the difference between subjective evidence and
objective evidence. Subjective evidence is what the actual defendant thinks, while objective
evidence is what a reasonable person would think from the defendant's position. From the
subjective test, I found out that when Tom saw the fire, he got scared and left this place as
soon as possible. He didn't even think about what would happen next. But from objective
tests, I found out that if there is a reasonable person, after seeing the fire, they can try to put
out the fire as soon as possible or seek help from others. So here Tom is responsible for his
negligence. There is a negligence case called Mc Crone v Riding (1938). Carelessness is
often called "negligence" in legal terms. Tom is negligent, because he did not foresee the risk
of fire, but a reasonable person would foresee or foresee the risk, but did not take measures to
avoid the risk or took inappropriate measures, therefore, lower than expected Standard
rational person. This means that Tom's negligence at the time of the arson was caused by his
negligence, but he still did not take any action to avoid the risk of such negligence.
From the above situation, we can see that because there was no light in the church, therefore,
Tom used a lighter for the lighting. Earlier we see that to carry out his plan, Tom breaks into
the church at night. Because at night is the best time to fly. Not only did he break into the
church, he also planned to steal money from the church. He also knew where it was kept. All
the acts he does prove that he is not a minor or a lunatic because a minor or a lunatic may not
be able to think this way or carry out the crime as planned. . From the above discussion, it is
said that Tom had proper knowledge of the church when he decided to steal this particular
church. So Tom knows that the more lighters he uses to light, the more he can create flames
on the church floor. This means that he was aware of the risk to his actions. Therefore, the
defendant's lawyer cannot invoke article 82,83,84 of the Penal Code to defend himself.

Under Article 378 of the Criminal Code, anyone who dishonestly intends to take movable
property of the property of a person without the consent of that person, moving the property
only to take it is theft. This means that theft will happen when someone's intentions are
dishonest, without the owner's consent, and stray from the right place. Tom had dishonest
intentions here. He wants to carry out his plan without anyone's consent. But it is a fact that
Tom did not replace the ownership of its correct location, which means it is not a theft. Intent
is the main note in this section. Tom intends to take the silverware from the church which is
movable property. This dishonesty is defined as causing undue damage to the church and
wrongful gain for Tom. The intention to use an illegal or unlawful means to gain illegal profit
is a key part of the crime of theft. Here, a true declaration of rights is a valid defense for the
continuation of theft.
It is also necessary that the supplications be true and made in good faith and not just
pretense. It should be an honest but weak statement. But here, anyone with knowledge of the
offense can file a complaint for Tom's theft.

Pursuant to section 425, anyone with the intention of causing unjustifiable loss or damage to
property or any change in the property or its condition that destroys or impairs its value or
use. , or adversely affect it, commit crimes. Intent to cause undue harm is a major factor in an
offense under this section. Here, Tom wants to take direct action on the loss or damage that is
not worth it. Tom didn't fly but the fire was his fault. Although he had no intention of burning
down the church floor, he knew it was his fault. This section thinks that intention is not
necessary but that knowledge of sin is essential for committing wrongdoing. Tom knows the
church is made of wood, so using a lighter can create a fire on the church floor. So Tom is
also responsible under section 436. He didn't want to destroy the church, but he knew the
lighters were an explosive that could destroy churches.

In this case, the defendant's lawyer could assert that Tom did not intend to set fire, he just
wanted to steal silverware from the church but after seeing the fire, Tom got scared and he
left. get out of the church as soon as possible, which means he burned it up not he stole it.
This proves he is not guilty. According to the provisions of Article 80 of the Penal Code, no
offense is committed by accident or accident, and without the intention or knowledge of the
crime by committing a lawful act without lawfully by lawful means and with appropriate care
and caution. Therefore, the defendant's attorney wants to prove that what happened was an
accident or a misfortune. But the defendant's attorney may have forgotten that Tom did not
go to church to perform a lawful act, but with the good intention of committing a
wrongdoing. Not only that, he also acted recklessly. The fire destroyed the church due to
Tom's negligence.

Conclusion:

From the above discussion of this matter, we come to the point that Tom knowingly wanted
to commit a wrongdoing (theft), he did so on his own initiative, and also committed an act of
wrongdoing (theft). trespassing on the property of others with malicious intent. Tom can file
a theft complaint. He also committed a negligent act of carrying and using explosives
(lighters) causing the church to burn down, although he made no effort to avoid this
dangerous danger. He also did wrongdoing which caused the destruction of the church. It is
also proven that the accident does not happen by chance. So all of this proves that Tom did
the act of reus and mens rea, both of which are essential to proving any crime. This means
that Tom is justifiably responsible for the burning of the church. I therefore ask the honorary
judge that the court punish him for negligence, imprisonment for one or the other description
for a period of up to three months or a fine or both under (section 426) or be sentenced to life
imprisonment, or to imprisonment as described for a term of up to ten years, and shall also be
subject to a fine under (section 436) or any other penalty which the honorary judge may grant
is appropriate. That is all.

References:
[1] Bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd. 2020. The Penal Code, 1860. [online] Available at:
<http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-11.html> [Accessed 26 September 2020].
[2] BDLD - Bangladesh Law Digest. 2020. Constitution of Bangladesh and The Penal
Code,1860. [online] Available at: <http://bdlawdigest.org/a-comparative-analysis-between-
the-provisions-the-constitution-of-bangladesh-and-the-penal-code-1860.html> [Accessed 26
September 2020].
[3] HUQ, Z., 2019. The Penal Code. 2nd ed.
[4]Khulnadiv.gov.bd.2020.[online]Available
<http://www.khulnadiv.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/www.khulnadiv.gov.bd/law_policy/1a
6f8fdf_1c3b_11e7_8f57_286ed488c766/PENAL%20CODE%201860.pdf> [Accessed 26
September 2020].

[5] Oecd.org. 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.oecd.org/site/adboecdanti-

corruptioninitiative/46812525.pdf> [Accessed 26 September 2020].