Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To constitute arson:
It must be shown that the act was willful. It must be shown that it was by the conscious act of the
accused. Burning a house through negligence or accident is not arson.
In the case of SIXTUS AMIN V. R. (1967) H.C.D. No. 6, the accused set fire and burnt the
complainant’s house. The court held that where the evidence establish an accused careless or
negligent conduct but doesn’t establish willful and unlawful behavior as here arson conviction
can’t stand.
It must be shown that he had no lawful excuse for doing so. In other words, it must be shown that
he acted with an evil mind or maliciously. But where a person sets fire in his own house without
endangering life or adjacent buildings such act is not parse unlawful. But there may be
circumstances in which a person who sets fire to his own house could be guilty of arson. It all
depends on the circumstances of the case.
In MWAKARIFU V. R. (1967) H.C.D. No. 185, the accused set fire to his house in order to
end relationship with his wife. The court held that it would have been unlawfully for him to set
fire to his own property if a person was in the premises or other buildings belonging to other
people were endangered.
That the crops, grass, tress, etc was under cultivation or was cultivated.
INJURING ANIMALS
According to section 325 TPC, the act of the accused must be willful and unlawful. The damage
must not be incidental to another offence. It is important also to note what animals are capable of
being stolen under section 257TPC.