Criminal law notes.

1. Made by Aliah
Criminal Law notes – Trifle, accident, duress and infancy
Trifles
 S 95 – Acts that cause slight harm which no person of ordinary sense and temper would
complain of such harm is not an offence.
 The law has provided that it will not take account trifles, namely, de minimis non curat lex
and the parties can settle the matter between themselves outside the court.
 Kishori Mohan v State of Bihar – A photograph of a worker with a garland of shoes
around his neck was taken. The photograph was not shown to complainant nor was it
published anywhere. Court held that it was trivial and merely admonished the accused.
 State of Maharashtra v Taherbhai – High Court held the accused guilty for selling har-
boiled sugar confectionary in contravention of the rules framed under the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act.
 Veeda Menezes v Yusuf Khan Haji Ibrahim Khan – S 95 is intended to prevent
penalisation of offences of trivial nature. Whether an act which amounts to an offence is
trivial would undoubtedly depend upon the nature of the injury, the position of the parties,
the knowledge or intention with which the offending act is done and other related factors.
Accident
 S 80 – Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune and without any
criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful
means and with proper care and caution.
Duress
 S 94 – Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by
threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant
death to that person will otherwise be the consequence.
 This section exempts a man from criminal liability since it was done against the person’s
will and hence they are not responsible for it.
 It is not every threat of injury that will excuse a man from punishment. The threat must be
of instant death to the person compelled to commit the offence, and that the person so
threatened should not have placed himself in that situation of his own accord.
 Therefore, there are three elements that need to be proven:
a. He did not of his own accord, expose himself to the costraint.
b. The fear which prompted his action was the fear of instant death.
c. The accused had no option but to die or to accomplish the act directed by the person
so threatening.
 There are two exceptions:
a. Murder.
b. Waging war against the Government of India, where compulsion cannot be pleaded as
a defence to a criiminal act.
It is based on the ground that no one has a right to take another’s life in order to save his
own, and that the State has a right to ensure its own preservation by providing deterrent
penalties.
 S v Goliath – South African Penal Code reform suggested that duress should be allowed
as a partial defence to a charge of murder when circumstances apply.
 Abbott v R – Duress is no defence to a criminal charge of murder under any
circumstances, ie. even if the accused acted under threats of death it is no excuse.
 R v Hudson and R v Taylor – Duress is defence to a charge of perjury. Two accused,
Miss Hudson and Miss Taylor were charged with perjury for giving false evidence at a
1

2. Made by Aliah
criminal trial. They pleaded that a man named Farrell was present at the trial at which the
false evidence was given who threatened to cut them up unless evidence was given as
directed.
 R v Graham – Defence of duress is limited to the objective criteria formulated in terms of
reasonableness. Appeal for conviction for murder is dismissed.
Infancy
 S 82 – Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
 S 83 – Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and
under twelve, who has no attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the
nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
 It is based on the principle that an infant is incapable of distinguishing between right and
wrong and so no criminal responsibility could be fastened in regard to his deeds.
 Doli incapax; that is, incapable of doing a criminal act because a child under such age
group cannot form the necessary intention to commit a crime.
 Hiralal Mallick v State of Bihar – Presumption that child between age of ten and
fourteen is doli incapax is rebuttable.
 C v Director of Public Prosecutor – Child aged between 10 and 14 is doli incapax
according to English Law. Presumption is rebuttable by clear and positive evidence that
the child knew that his act was seriously wrong.
 R v Gorrie – At common law a child aged between 10 and 14 is rebuttably presumed
incapable of committing an offence. This presumption is rebutted if the prosecution prove
that the child has a mischievous discretion.
 R v Runekles – At common law a child under 14 is presumed not to have reache the
age of discretion and is to be deemed doli incapax. The presumption is rebuttable and
the burden of rebutting is upon the prosecution.
2