13.07.2015 Views

The Common Law in India - College of Social Sciences and ...

The Common Law in India - College of Social Sciences and ...

The Common Law in India - College of Social Sciences and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Crim<strong>in</strong>al <strong>Law</strong> 149provides expressly that the mistake has to be a mistake<strong>of</strong> fact <strong>and</strong> not a mistake <strong>of</strong> law <strong>and</strong> the persondo<strong>in</strong>g the act should have done it <strong>in</strong> good faith, which,as we have seen, imports due care <strong>and</strong> attention.That requirement <strong>in</strong>troduces the idea that the mistakemust, as <strong>in</strong> English law, be a reasonable one. Astatute may <strong>of</strong> course expressly or by implicationexclude the defence <strong>of</strong> mistake. In such cases theexemption from liability will not be available <strong>in</strong> <strong>India</strong>as well as <strong>in</strong> Engl<strong>and</strong>.Husb<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wife : <strong>The</strong> presumption existed atcommon law, <strong>in</strong> the case <strong>of</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> crimes, that wherea crime was committed by a wife <strong>in</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong>her husb<strong>and</strong>, the wife acted under the coercion <strong>of</strong>the husb<strong>and</strong>. 79 <strong>The</strong> wife was supposed to be subjectto such powerful <strong>in</strong>fluences by the husb<strong>and</strong> that shewas, <strong>in</strong> some cases which were not denned, excusedon the assumption that she was act<strong>in</strong>g under thehusb<strong>and</strong>'s <strong>in</strong>fluence. 80 <strong>The</strong>re was also assumed tobe such a community <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>terest between them thatneither could br<strong>in</strong>g any crim<strong>in</strong>al charge aga<strong>in</strong>st theother except <strong>in</strong> regard to personal <strong>in</strong>juries <strong>in</strong>flictedby the one upon the other. 81 Nor could a husb<strong>and</strong><strong>and</strong> wife <strong>in</strong> Engl<strong>and</strong> be convicted <strong>of</strong> conspiracy ifthey were the only parties to it. 82<strong>The</strong> law, however, <strong>in</strong> Engl<strong>and</strong> has been substantiallyaltered s<strong>in</strong>ce the days <strong>of</strong> the enactment <strong>of</strong> the'» Halsbury, <strong>Law</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Engl<strong>and</strong>, 3rd ed., Vol. 10, p. 291, para. 542.80 Stephen, Dig. Crim. <strong>Law</strong>, Art. 30; Brown v. Att.-Gen. forNew Zeal<strong>and</strong> [1898] A.C. 234.« <strong>The</strong> Queen v. <strong>The</strong> Lord Mayor <strong>of</strong> London (1886) 16 Q.B.D.772; a case <strong>of</strong> private libel.82 Laila Jh<strong>in</strong>a Mawji v. <strong>The</strong> Queen [1957] A.C. 126.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!