Legal Maxims Crime

33. “A person who affirms his own shame cannot be heard in any instance, what can be said of a criminal court, as explained by the legal maxim `allegans suam turpitudinem non est audiendus`. If petitioners have committed injustice by occupying public land, they cannot be allowed to profit from their own injustice. The legal maxim actori incumbit onus probandi was applied in Kuthalinga Nadar v. D.D.Murugesan (2011) to reach a decision. The original plaintiff filed a second appeal, arguing that the second subject of the lawsuit (7 cents) was part of the first subject of the lawsuit. The defendant, according to the plaintiff, had interfered with the plaintiff`s enjoyment of the property of the second claim (7 cents). The plaintiff had the burden of proof to prove the same and, as he had not done so, the second appeal was dismissed by the Madras High Court. There is no harm without recourse, or when there is a legal right, there is a recourse. It is the mental state of the accused that refers to the person`s knowledge that he or she is committing a crime. That is, the person knows that the law prohibits the action, estimates what the outcome of the action will be and, in particular, intends to break the law.

It is usually absent in the mentally ill and minors. The case of Neeraj Kumar Sainy and Ors v. State of U.P and Ors (2017) concerned the failure of the advisory procedures relating to the UPPGMEE-2016 test. The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit cannot be used in isolation. The facts must guarantee this. The maxim nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare arose out of a protest against the inquisitorial and patently unfair methods of questioning the accused, which had long prevailed in the continental system and were not unusual even in England, until the Stuarts were ousted from the British throne in 1688 and additional barriers were erected to protect the people from the exercise of arbitrary power. While prisoners` recordings or confessions have always featured prominently on the scale of incriminating evidence when done voluntarily and freely, the ease with which questions are asked can take on an inquisitorial tone when an accused is asked to explain his or her apparent connection to a crime under investigation. “It is a legal doctrine that requires courts to follow historical cases when making a decision on a similar case.

It ensures that cases with similar scenarios and facts are approached in the same way. Simply put, it requires courts to follow precedents set by previous decisions. The applicants in R. Balakrishna Pillai v. The State of Kerala (2003) was convicted under sections 5 (2) and 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 of causing M/s.Graphite India Ltd, Bangalore, to obtain something of value, namely electricity, by illegally selling it to the company and abusing its official position as a public official. which resulted in a monetary advantage for M/s.GIL of Rs.19 lakhs and odd parts. The one who is first in time is more demanding. A legal principle that older laws take precedence over newer ones.

The legal maxim “benignae faciendae sunt interpretationes chartarum, ut res magis valeat quam pereat” means that the construction of documents must be designed at a lower cost, so that the instrument can be used rather than perish. Simply put, documents must be constructed in such a way that the instrument serves and does not die. 100. Particeps criminis – A participant in the crime or partner in actual crime. It is a legal term that refers to the legal, moral, political and social principles used by a court to write the reasoning for a particular judgment. 37. “Maxim Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria has a clear mandate from the law that a person who, by manipulating a process, destroys the legal rights of others, should not be allowed to exploit his wrongs or manipulations. In this case, defendants 2 and 3 and the appellant acted jointly in the sale of the pledged property and can no longer be allowed to re-argue that liability arising from the sale of the goods cannot be attributed to defendants 2 and 3 and, in any event, to the appellant. The issue raised in 2013 before the Supreme Court of India in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2013) was whether an authorised officer acting under section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) is required by law to inform the accused of his right to be searched before a public official or judge and whether such a procedure is mandatory under the provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court of India ruled on the case of Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay (1951) had held that section 13 (1) of the Constitution of India was not applicable to the case because the crime had been committed before the coming into force of the Constitution, so that the applicant`s 1949 proceedings had not been affected.

The Court noted that previous and completed operations, as well as rights already acquired under the applicable law, would not be affected by the entry into force of the Constitution, even if the laws referred to in Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Constitution became invalid. The Court also held that Article 13(1) did not invalidate from the outset or in practice previous legislative provisions incompatible with fundamental rights. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea stipulates that any act must be committed with a guilty mind to be criminal in nature. To convict the accused, it must be proven that the unlawful conduct was committed with intent to commit a crime. The purpose of the accused, which is to conduct the exact conduct, is as important in proving the guilt of the accused as the act itself. Therefore, the mere commission of a criminal offence or an offence against the law is not sufficient to constitute a criminal offence. It should be used in conjunction with the presence of misconduct. In addition, mens rea is crucial in determining the seriousness of the offence committed. 7. “.

To determine whether a decision is “declared just”, a law cannot be called if a concession point is sold and the principle underlying a decision is binding. A judgment of the Court must be read in conjunction with the questions raised in the case which gave it. An obiter dictum, distinct from a ratio decidendi, is a remark made by the Court on a question of law raised in a dispute pending before it, but which does not arise in a manner requiring a decision. Such an obiter may have no binding precedent, since the remark was not necessary for the decision proclaimed, but even if an obiter may not have binding effect as a precedent, it cannot be denied that it carries considerable weight … The plaintiffs and other Hindus may feel reverence for the goddesses in question, but what right do the defendants deny them by showing the video in the exercise of their prima facie legal right? The defendants show the film that is certified and they do so in the exercise of their statutory right. No legal rights of the plaintiffs are violated. It is a concept that fairness or the law will not help a person or party to blame. The law will not help a person whose own fault has made legal action necessary.