rajivkrishnan
Regular
sir... respectfully if i may be allowed to say so, there cannot be a law which can segregate intent and effects to the extent that one can be culpable and the other cannot. That beats the whole purpose of a neutral law sir.
-
Amazon Deals - ToS - Like us?
IIM student Commits Suicide on BF dumping on FB
your previous statement was incorrect, what you are now saying appears to be totally differentand if i may add mental awareness and after-effects are segregated under criminal law to result in differing culpabilities
rajivkrishnan
Regular
OK. Let me clarify.IPC 299: Culpable Homicide - crime comitted with intentIPC 300: Murder - crime committed with obvious intentIPC 301: Culpable homicide by causing death of unintended person: When somebody else gets killed when you want to kill someone else.Judgements are of course left to the learned judges. I hope you understand what point I am making Sir
mehrotra.akash
Regular
OK. Let me clarify.
IPC 299: Culpable Homicide - crime comitted with intent
IPC 300: Murder - crime committed with obvious intent
IPC 301: Culpable homicide by causing death of unintended person: When somebody else gets killed when you want to kill someone else.
Judgements are of course left to the learned judges. I hope you understand what point I am making Sir
I dont see why any of these are applicable,as the intent was never to kill anyone
IPC 299: Culpable Homicide - crime comitted with intent
IPC 300: Murder - crime committed with obvious intent
IPC 301: Culpable homicide by causing death of unintended person: When somebody else gets killed when you want to kill someone else.
Judgements are of course left to the learned judges. I hope you understand what point I am making Sir
I dont see why any of these are applicable,as the intent was never to kill anyone
rajivkrishnan
Regular
oh no no... nowhere relevant to the topic.. SORRY... but just an answer to cyberwiz' contention.
so the intent is an important element in each section, how can causing any harm be a crime irrespective of intent?
as you can see above...the law is segregating intent and effects..contrast these sections with your statement "there cannot be a law which can segregate intent and effects to the extent that one can be culpable and the other cannot"
as you can see above...the law is segregating intent and effects..contrast these sections with your statement "there cannot be a law which can segregate intent and effects to the extent that one can be culpable and the other cannot"
mehrotra.akash
Regular
ohk.. didnt go through the previous posts 
rajivkrishnan
Regular
cyberwiz, sir. as part of civilized society you are trying to put through that a 4 year term is better than a life term? I mean on a planar note any day spent in even a police lockup should screw the whole thing over sir.
all iam trying to put across is that what you are posting regarding criminal law, intent and effects is against the basic principles of criminal law, now dont take this personally but you need to have a good grasp of a discipline before you start making generalised statements regarding it in a public forum.
rajivkrishnan
Regular
absolutely right sir. But I am trying to see it from the angle that the society at large would have seen. I am sorry to say that I have not come to any legal conclusion anyway. More so, the acts around these areas are pretty convoluted themselves. And thats where I like to see the whole society to come to a simple conclusion. Thats exactly what comes out of a court of law. Isnt it?
----------
and in legal speak let me add something. Intention has to be proved in a court of law. You cant hold a person guilty before trial unless we are talking about laws that do require the defendant to prove himself innocent.
----------
and in legal speak let me add something. Intention has to be proved in a court of law. You cant hold a person guilty before trial unless we are talking about laws that do require the defendant to prove himself innocent.
