VARADARAJAN V. STATE OF MADRAS Varadarajan v. state of Madras, (1965) AIR 942 ISSUE: Whether the act of the appellant constituted ‘enticing’ or ‘taking away’ of Savitri out of the keeping of her lawful guardian, so as to amount to the offense of kidnapping under section 361 of IPC? RULE: Essential ingredients of section 361–...
Category: Criminal Law
ISSUE:
Whether the appellant can be held liable for the offence of theft?
RULE:
Taking need not be permanent: It is not necessary that the taking should be of a permanent character, or that the accused should have derived any profit. A temporary removal of an office file from the office of a Chief Engineer and making it available to a private person for a day or two amounts to the offence of theft.
ISSUE:
Whether the appellant's actions constituted the offence of theft as under section 378 of the Indian Penal Code?
RULE:
A temporary retention of property by a person wrongfully gaining thereby or a temporary keeping out of property from the person legally entitled thereto, may amount to theft under S. 378 of the-Indian Penal Code
ISSUE:
Whether the appellant had exceeded the right of private defense of a person?
RULE:
The extended right under s. 100 arose when there was the offence of assault of one of the types mentioned in the six clauses of that section. It was not necessary that the intention with which the assault was committed must always be an offence itself. The word "abduction" used in the fifth clause of s. 100 meant nothing more than what was defined as "abduction " in s.362, and it was not necessary, to get the protection of this clause, that the abduction must be of a type punishable under the Penal Code.
ISSUE:
Whether the appellant can be held liable for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC or Section 304, having regards to the provision of Section 86 of the IPC?
RULE:
So far as knowledge is concerned the court must attribute to the intoxicated man the same knowledge as if he was quite sober but so far as intent or intention is concerned, the court must gather it from the attending general circumstances of the case paying due regard to the degree of intoxication.
ISSUE:
Whether the appellant can be held liable for murder or did he act in his right of private defense?
RULE:
Under section 102 of the IPC, right to private defence commences, as soon as a reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed.
ISSUE:
Whether the allegations constitute any of the offences mentioned below?
RULE:
Any act done to, or in the presence of a woman, which is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind, must fall within the mischief of Section 354. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex and from her very birth she possesses the modesty which is the attribute of her sex.
ISSUE:
Whether the appellant can be held liable for attempting to cause miscarriage even though the substance was not harmful?
RULE:
Whoever attempts to commit an offense punishable by this code with transportation or imprisonment, or to cause such an offense to be committed and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offense shall be punished.
ISSUE:
Whether from the facts of the case it could be inferred beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondents had attempted to export the silver in contravention of the law?
RULE:
In order to constitute 'an attempt', first, there must be an intention to commit a particular offense, second, some act must have been done which would necessarily have to be done towards the commission of the offense, and, third, such act must be 'proximate' to the intended result. The measure of proximity is not in relation to time and action but in relation to intention.