#Legal Principles

[s1mpl3legal]

Law & Morality

 Name of the case: State of Orissa vs Ram Bahadur Thapa

Parties to the case: Appellant: State of Orissa

                             Respondent: Ram Bahadur Thapa

Nature of case: Criminal 

Citation: AIR 1960 Ori 161, 1960 CriLJ 1349

Bench: Justice M. Hidayatullah and Justice S.M. Sikri

FACTS OF THE CASE

State of Orissa vs. Ram Bahadur Thapa AIR 1960 Ori 161, 1960 Cri LJ 1349 is a case which can be said as a historic landmark case. In this case, it was discussed about where people used to believe in the existence of supernatural powers. In this case the incident happened like that, when the accused  took the defense on the basis of the existence of supernatural things like ghosts. The bench of supreme court tried whether the defense was valid or invalid.

In Rasgovindpur village there is an abandoned aerodrome which was collected in a large quantity. The Garrison engineer of the defense department kept the aero scrap in charge of two chowkidars. From the firm of Chatterjee brothers, Jagat Bandhu Chatterjee came to the village to purchase the aero scarp with the Nepali servant named Ram Bahadur Thapa (respondent). There was a fear of ghosts in the village and the Adivasis would not ordinarily venture out at night. But Jagat Bandhu Chatterjee and Ram Bahadur Thapa were anxious to see the ghosts, so they convinced Krishna Chandra Patro and Chandra Majhi to accompany them to see the ghosts. Chandra Majhi guided them to his village. Hence at about midnight they went to see the ghosts and then began returning to the village through a foot-path across the aerodrome. While returning they noticed a flickering light at a distance and they also found some apparitions moving around the flickering light. The Ram Bahadur Thapa was first to reach the place and without thinking for a second he with his khurki began to attack the ghosts indiscriminately and when he hit Krishna Chandra Patro, he shouted that the respondent had attacked him and in the meantime the victims also raised a cry of distress so the respondent stopped attacking the people.The persons whom the respondent attacked and injured were some female majhis of the locality who came to collect mahua flowers under a mahua tree with hurricane lantern at that hour of night. By the indiscriminate attack one girl called Gelhi Majhiani was killed and other two females were grievously injured. For this indiscriminate act of attacking the people the respondent, Ram Bahadur Thapa was charged for murder under section 302 and for hurt and grievous hurt under section 324 and section 326 of IPC.

ISSUES RAISED ARE

Whether the decision by the subordinate court was valid?

Can the respondent be protected under Section 79 of the IPC?

DECISION

The court found the act covered under general exceptions of the criminal act stated under chapter IV of Indian penal code 1860. It was believed by the session judge that the circumstances and the situation of the event was as such which is completely under the shield of the mistake of fact. Section 79 of Indian penal code 1860 is a rescues provision which states that if the act is done under bona fide mistake of fact then there will be no punishment on that part. Here the mistake must be bona fide which means that must be in good faith. The benefit of section 79 IPC is only given to a person who acts in the mistake of fact in a good faith. The court here is satisfied regarding the situation under which Nepali servant Mr. Ram Bahadur Thapa i.e. the respondent acted, can’t be termed as carelessness or mala fide but as per the evidence and consideration of status it is clear that the act caused was under good faith.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio decidendi in State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa (1959) dealt with the concept of mens rea, or criminal intent, in determining liability for an offense. In this case, Ram Bahadur Thapa and others were charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code after Thapa killed a person whom he believed to be a ghost. The case raised the question of whether Thapa could be held criminally responsible, given his genuine belief that he was not attacking a human being.

The Supreme Court held that for an individual to be convicted of a crime, criminal intent (mens rea) must be present. Since Thapa acted under a genuine, albeit mistaken, belief that he was attacking a supernatural entity rather than a person, he lacked the intent required to be found guilty of murder. This case thus established the importance of mens rea in criminal liability, highlighting that an honest mistake regarding the nature of one’s actions could negate criminal intent and, therefore, criminal liability. The decision underscored that to establish guilt, there must be proof that the accused acted with awareness of their actions and with the intent to cause harm to another person.

OBITER DICTA

In State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapar (1959), the obiter dicta revolved around the concepts of mens rea and intent in criminal law. While the primary issue was whether Ram Bahadur Thapa could be convicted of murder given his mistaken belief about the identity of his victim, the justices made important comments on the relationship between criminal intent and the nature of a crime. They underscored that criminal liability is contingent upon the presence of mens rea, meaning that a person should not be convicted of a crime unless they had the necessary intent to commit that crime. The justices noted that even if someone commits an unlawful act, they should not be held criminally liable if they were unaware of the nature of their actions or did not have the intent to harm.

The case also led to observations about the burden of proof in criminal cases, with the Court emphasizing that the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had both the opportunity and the intent to commit the offense. If a defendant can demonstrate that their actions were based on a genuine mistake of fact, particularly when there is no malicious intent, this could serve as a defense against criminal liability.

Additionally, the justices reflected on the relationship between law and morality, acknowledging that the law must take into account human fallibility and the possibility of honest mistakes. They noted that while the law must maintain its role in preventing harm to others, it must also be fair in its application, ensuring that people are not unjustly punished for actions they did not intend or for which they had no criminal intent. This highlights the Court’s concern with ensuring that justice is tempered by fairness and reason, especially when dealing with complex issues of intent in criminal law.

REFLECTION

I chose the State of Orissa vs. Ram Bahadur case for its pivotal impact on criminal law principles. Its scrutiny of circumstantial evidence and emphasis on fair trials resonate with broader legal principles, reflecting my interest in foundational aspects of jurisprudence and justice.

[thetaxguyin]

Upholding Legal Rights: Gujarat High Court's Stance on Income Tax Department's Seizure

In a recent development at the Gujarat High Court, a division bench comprising Justices Bhargav Karia and Niral Mehta has taken a firm stance regarding the seizure of “non-incriminating” data from a lawyer’s office by the Income Tax department. Refusing to accept the department’s undertaking on sealing the data, the bench has decided to delve into the matter on its merits. The petition before…

[legalattorneyblog]

Introducing "GUIDE ON PRE-ELECTION LITIGATION" by Polycarp Dama Datau

Are you ready to gain profound insights into the intricate world of pre-election litigation? Look no further! We are thrilled to present “GUIDE ON PRE-ELECTION LITIGATION: PRINCIPLES, PRACTICE & PROCEDURE,” authored by the esteemed legal expert Polycarp Dama Datau. ARGUMENTS IN ELECTION PETITION APPEALS Volumes I & II by Polycarp Dama Datau, Esq. Meet the Author: Polycarp Dama Datau is a…

[worldwatcher3072]

Constitution Matters:

Part Eight - The Eighth Amendment and Its Significance

Welcome back to our ongoing series, "Constitution Matters," where we delve into the fundamental principles and amendments that shape the foundation of our democratic society. In this eighth installment, we explore the importance of the Eighth Amendment and how it safeguards the rights of every individual.

The Eighth Amendment: A Shield Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This concise yet powerful statement embodies the commitment of our nation to justice, fairness, and the protection of human dignity.

1. Protection Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The Eighth Amendment stands as a bulwark against the use of cruel and unusual punishment in the criminal justice system. It reflects the Founding Fathers' awareness of the potential for governmental abuse and their desire to prevent such abuse from occurring. This amendment ensures that punishments meted out by the legal system remain proportionate to the crime committed and do not cross the boundary into degrading or inhumane treatment.

2. Human Dignity and Moral Progress

By prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, the Eighth Amendment recognizes the inherent worth and dignity of every individual, regardless of their actions. It reflects the belief that even in the face of wrongdoing, our society should strive to uphold a higher moral standard. This commitment to human dignity reinforces the idea that our justice system should aim to rehabilitate offenders, rather than subject them to dehumanizing treatment.

3. Evolving Interpretations and Contemporary Relevance

Over the years, the Eighth Amendment's interpretation has evolved to reflect changing societal norms and a deeper understanding of human rights. Courts have consistently grappled with questions about the constitutionality of various punishments, particularly in cases involving the death penalty, life imprisonment without parole for juveniles, and harsh sentences for nonviolent offenses. These debates illustrate the enduring relevance of the Eighth Amendment in guiding our legal system toward fairness and compassion.

4. A Protector of Vulnerable Populations

The Eighth Amendment serves as a safeguard for vulnerable populations, ensuring that they are not disproportionately subjected to harsh punishment. This includes individuals with mental illnesses, juveniles, and those facing economic hardship. The amendment underscores the principle that justice must be blind and unbiased, and that punitive measures should not discriminate based on an individual's background or circumstances.

The Eighth Amendment is a cornerstone of our Constitution, embodying our commitment to justice, human dignity, and the rule of law. Its prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment reflects the timeless values upon which our nation was founded, while also adapting to the changing needs and understanding of our society. As we continue to navigate the complexities of our criminal justice system, the Eighth Amendment remains an essential guidepost, reminding us that the pursuit of justice must always be tempered by compassion and respect for every individual's inherent worth.

Join us next time for Part Nine of "Constitution Matters," where we will explore the Ninth Amendment and its significance in protecting unenumerated rights.

Regenerate

[somecunttookmyurl]

look. i've always gone into the men's loo when there's a queue in the women's because i refuse to wait behind 5 lassies who wanna take half an hour to fucking piss but like. listen. i will simply be using the men's loo on purpose just to be a contrary bastard and any company who wants to have a policy about it can try and prove i wasn't AMAB without breaking any actual laws*

now. that said. i'm going to need the cis men with a contrary bastard streak to use the ladies for the same reason. ask them to prove you're not a passing trans man. disrupt the government by literally taking a shit.

*they have no way of doing that

[gingerf1]

Lesson 1: The Birth of a Brat Era 🖊️

My new story Principles of Brat Behavior is now available! ✨🎓 This is the prequel to NSFW: The Official Handbook of Corporate Brat Behavior. 💼💕

Max.

His name was Max.

The boy smiled, and Charles swore the entire room softened with it. His eyes crinkled at the corners as he made his way down the aisle with quiet ease, a backpack slung over one shoulder. There was nothing dramatic about the way he walked, no arrogance, no performance, and yet Charles felt like he was watching a runway.

Thank you so much for reading and your lovely comments! 💖

A special thank you to the lovely anon who suggested writing this, you’re the reason this exists, and I love you for it! 🥹💗

[alwaysbewoke]

the fix is in!!

[marlynnofmany]

.where do i read murderbot Legally And Totally For Money (sarcastic) im so interested bc u keep posting and reblogging about murderbot but i have no time or money to go out and get it from the library or buy it from a bookstore. So

If you have e-book capabilities, most libraries do those now, and that just takes a few clicks! I definitely recommend the series. I first heard about it by someone else posting about it here, and it's great. The first book is All Systems Red.

[zahri-melitor]

dick just tells all his siblings he'd have tried adopting them

The thing is, I’m certain this is not the case. The two 'offers' of adoption Dick has made (to Jason and to Damian) are based in Dick attempting to create or reinforce a bond and support system for the other outside of the one via Bruce, because Damian in particular needs to hear that someone would choose him, rather than that he's an unlooked-for obligation.

This dynamic is not there for Dick with either Tim or Cass, and he probably never would even consider telling them that he would adopt either. I think it's interesting to look at why.

For Tim, I can’t think of a moment where this would come up between Dick and Tim, and much of that revolves around the fact that the topic of adoption was incredibly fraught for both Dick and Tim right up until post-Infinite Crisis, at which point Tim's own adoption story occurs in Face the Face.

Part of Dick and Tim’s initial bond is over their equal footing on this; Dick can call Bruce ‘our Dad’ to Tim because he’s both of their former foster father, as well as their mentor. Neither of them are adopted; Jason was the adopted child, and they're working around Bruce's grief over this.

And not to take Nightwing #110 1996 out of context, but it’s incredibly telling to me that this is the only major conversation Dick and Tim EVER have about adoption together; the one in which Dick reacts badly to the idea of Bruce adopting Tim and Tim scrambles to explain he didn't accept it.

Their relationship and brotherhood isn’t based in their mutual relationships with Bruce: it’s based in their shared past and views of each other, entirely separate to Bruce. They don't need that legal support structure for their view of each other, because their brotherhood existed for an entire real world decade before Dick was adopted himself.

In the case of Cass, it's even more unlikely on two angles: Barbara and Batgirl 2008.

Firstly, Dick would never need to make an offer to give Cass the security of a legal family, because if it ever ended up necessary, Barbara is obviously the person other than Bruce who would do so. There's simply no reason that Dick would need to do this for Cass' security.

But also: Dick ended up getting stuck being the naysaying voice in Batgirl 2008, and as part of that, his major comments directed towards Cass on the topic of adoption include the fact that he doesn't think Bruce should be adopting her, let alone stepping in himself. Of course, both before and after this storyline in other titles Dick's a lot more accepting and slots her straight into the 'little sister' spot, but it's also the only real occasion we hear Dick having views on Cass and adoption.

But beyond Batgirl 2008 creating friction in the Dick and Cass relationship, their broader relationship, like both of theirs with Tim, is based in mutual assistance and a period of storytelling where they didn't need formalised relationships via Bruce to define their bonds with each other. Dick's close relationship with Cass was as vigilantes working together and his more distant one was "Cass is my girlfriend's mentee".

So like...I do see the joke but it drops a lot of complexity out of Dick's relationships with different characters, to flatten it all down to the same beat.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Madeline Peltz and John Knefel at MMFA:

Media Matters found significant ties between authors, contributors, and partner organizations involved in Project 2025 — an extreme right-wing initiative organized by The Heritage Foundation to provide policy and personnel to the next Republican presidential administration — and the ongoing right-wing efforts to disenfranchise voters and sow confusion about the 2024 election. The Heritage Foundation itself is at the center of many of these efforts; The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer identified the conservative think tank as one of the election denial movement’s “leaders” following the 2020 election. Heritage has extensive connections to election denial groups through both direct collaboration on voter suppression policies and the Project 2025 advisory board, which includes more than 110 conservative groups.  According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “Project 2025 threatens to reverse progress made over the last four years by stripping crucial federal resources from election officials and weaponizing the Department of Justice against officials who make decisions the administration disagrees with.” The Project 2025 policy book, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, recommends dismantling the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which plays a key role in protecting American elections. Mandate’s chapter on the Federal Election Commission was written by Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage legal fellow with a decades-long career spreading voter fraud myths. The Heritage Foundation’s political arm, Heritage Action, is a member of the Only Citizens Vote Coalition — a collection of election denial activists and right-wing groups that voting rights experts say are spreading misinformation about noncitizen voting. Only Citizens Vote was organized by prominent election denier Cleta Mitchell, a Project 2025 contributor, and many of the Heritage plan’s advisory board members are also Only Citizen Vote Coalition partners. In collaboration with The Heritage Foundation and Project 2025, the groups and individuals listed here are at the forefront of efforts to sow chaos and confusion in the 2024 election.

Project 2025 partner groups are seeking a redux of their unsuccessful 2020 election-stealing efforts to sow chaos about a potential Kamala Harris win with their bogus crusade against the essentially nonexistent bogeyman of noncitizen voting.

PDF:

[nhura]

I'm absolutely still scratching my head at Ratio's localized name/title... In most languages, the character is called Dr. Ratio. His name is Veritas Ratio. This is normal

In CN, it's as follows:

Dr. Ratio -> 真理医生 -> zh��nlǐ yīshēng -> Doctor* of Truth

Veritas Ratio -> 维里塔斯•拉帝奥 -> wéilǐtǎsī lādìào -> Veritas Ratio again

"Ratio" originates from the Latin root for "logic/reason". But why did it slide in place of "Truth"? "Veritas" means truth! But he's still Veritas in CN! Doctor of Truth is a distinct title separate from Veritas Ratio. Is it just because "Dr. Truth" sounds stupid? Maybe!!

*Medical doctor/scholar, as opposed to 博士 (PhD) or 老師 (teacher). I'm curious as to whether or not that would make sense of his one flavor text where he's like.. something along the lines of "Even if I tell people a thousand times, the answer will not change. It's 'Doctor', not 'PhD'."

Looking back at leaks from a year-ish ago (sighs fondly in nostalgia of the time we only had his face and "Dr. Ratio is Imaginary"), translations kind of went back and forth on whether or not they referred to him as Dr. Ratio or Doctor of Truth. Everyone had an opinion on what was the better name. Sadly, his name is funny no matter what.

[amurder-ofcrows]

i’ve never been peer pressured or fell for other people doing it but i am still a bad influence as my dad got a monster energy drink instead of his coffee for our 4hr DC round trip today because i’ve started drinking energy drinks regularly and know the flavors well like please do not tell my mom about this she’ll be disappointed in the both of us and we don’t need that

[palms-upturned]

Outside of the United States, some unions and indigenous groups have come together as allies in combating the harms of capitalism and settler colonialism, recognizing the shared mission of unions and indigenous communities as power-building institutions. Solidarity is the core value of the labor movement; a motivating sentiment of organized labor is the conviction that “[a]n injury to one is an injury to all.”

This value is not always reflected in American unions’ relationships to Native nations. Using language that echoes countless employer reactions to union campaigns, the AFL-CIO has stated that it supports “the principle of sovereignty” for Native nations while advocating for the United States government to assert control over tribal-labor relations. Twenty-first-century American unions have positioned themselves as tools for combating racist power structures. Yet even as Native income per capita is less than half of the national average, unions have exploited fears of “rich Indians” to garner support from non-Native workers. And unions, through litigation, have encouraged and benefited from courts’ racist preconceptions of “Indianness” in setting the boundaries of acceptable exercises of sovereign power.

It does not serve the mission of the labor movement to benefit from these wrongs. As union leaders and labor activists fight for a world in which power is redistributed away from the hands of the few, solidarity requires that those efforts be situated within the broader context of genocide, systematic dispossession, and the destruction of Native sovereignty. When unions approach organizing in the tribal context as a fight over NLRB jurisdiction, they seek to build worker power at the expense of Native self-determination. But power-building is not a zero-sum game. By centering tribal organizing on disputes over Board jurisdiction rather than turning to tribal labor law as a first choice, unions miss the opportunity to engage collaboratively with Native nations to build institutions that better serve both.

Harvard Law Review, “Tribal Power, Worker Power: Organizing Unions in the Context of Native Sovereignty”

[imunbreakabledude]

i don't like the thread of thinking around natural disasters that some people deserve more sympathy/empathy than others, or that some people deserve having to evacuate, or having their homes destroyed, more/less than others.

like, i am not saying this in a "please think of the rich people!" way. i'm not saying that everyone must distinctly express well-wishes for every category of people equally... it does feel absolutely normal and natural to me if people's care and donations and sympathy gravitate more towards groups who are hit hardest or might have the hardest time recovering or who might not have access to certain recovery resources, etc.

but when discussion goes to that place of justifying why certain groups of people do deserve sympathy... it unsettles me, and I think i've put my finger on why. let's say there's a discussion (which i've seen much of this week) that goes like this. Some people say those who lost their homes in fires in California aren't worth sympathy because they're all rich people who lost a 2nd or 3rd mansion that was built in a place that was fire prone and they probably voted for climate-damaging policies/politicians too so they deserve what they got. Then, other people push back with reminders that not everyone affected by these fires is rich, not everyone affected by these fires will recover easily, lots of working and middle class people have had their lives destroyed, many historically Black neighborhoods have been destroyed, etc etc and those people clearly deserve sympathy!

the clarification is good. it's important. 100%. but it still views these disasters through the lens that Some people DON'T deserve them, which implies that some people... Do deserve them? and again, my point here is not "we must specifically have more sympathy for rich people losing mansions". my point is that I really don't like the undercurrent of a lot of these discussions of who "doesn't deserve" this because I don't like the idea that anyone deserves it. Because if you view it that way even hypothetically, even as like "MOST people don't deserve this but Really Bad People do"... i mean, first off, who decides who does and doesn't deserve it? and second off, like, are you okay with the idea that you or your loved ones could be put in a category of People Who Deserve To Lose Their Homes in a Natural Disaster by someone else?

it feels kinda religious-based or culturally christian to me. it feels like it's still based in the idea that natural disasters are Acts of God sent to punish the people who deserve to be punished, and ohh maybe it's too bad if some good people get caught in the crossfire and we ought to help those people out with charity. i do not like that. these aren't divine punishments. I don't even accept the line of thinking "well if it happens to people who specifically have pushed forward climate change, it's just karma/punishment for that, they're experiencing the consequences of their own actions--" no. it's problems for all of us and we have to face it together instead of arguing about who deserves to suffer and who deserves to be spared. there is literally no possible timeline where we round up all the oil barons and corrupt politicians and push them to the areas most affected by the climate crisis while we protect the Innocent Good Majority of people from those effects. and thinking of it thru that lens is both a) unhelpful and b) a way of thinking that can soooo easily be warped to cheering on the pain and suffering of any groups of people you deem "bad" which can be warped over time.

[lcpmon]

HOUSE. FUCKIN HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gingerf1]

I loved the prequel 🥹💗 it was so sweet and I loved the teenage drama, it was so cute. They learning to be together comparing to how comfortable they ended up being, is amazing.

Thank you so much 🥹💕 I’m so happy you enjoyed the story!

It’s been such a wild, dramatic journey 🤭 They were just two clueless college babies trying to figure everything out, only to end up completely in love, ridiculously comfortable, and hopelessly horny for each other 💗