Scribd
Upload
9 views

Assault's Notes Corrected

Uploaded by

ps.defensys
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
9 views

Assault's Notes Corrected

Uploaded by

ps.defensys
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Assault & Battery :

Assault:

When a defendant creates a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff that he is
going to commit a battery against the plaintiff, the tort of assault is said to have been
committed. A tort of assault consists of an attempt to cause a harm rather the harm is
actually being. A tort of assault consist of the creation of reasonable apprehension in the
mind of plaintiff that the defendant is going to use physical force against him. The main test
is whether an apprehension is created in the mind of the plaintiff or not, if it is created, it is
an assault otherwise not i.e. pointing a loaded gun towards the plaintiff by the defendant is
an assault but if the gun is not loaded and the plaintiff knows the fact that it is not loaded, it
shall not be an assault at all but if the plaintiff does not know the fact that the gun is not
loaded, it would be an assault.

In case of an assault in addition to the creation of an apprehension in the mind of the


plaintiff, the defendant should also have the ability to execute his threat, i.e. if a defendant,
sitting on the seat of a moving train, shows his closed fist to a plaintiff standing on a
platform, it will not be an assault because the defendant does not have the ability to
execute his threat.

In Venkata Surya Rao vs Nandipati Muthaiya, the plaintiff, a farmer was in arrear of land
revenue and when the defendant went to his home to collect the land revenue, the plaintiff
expressed his inability to pay the land revenue as his wife had gone out for some days and
his house was closed. The defendant threatened him that in the case of non payment of
land revenue the movable property of the plaintiff would be confiscated as it was the last
day for the payment of land revenue, since house of the plaintiff was closed and no
movable property was available, the defendant threatened to confiscate the gold ear rings,
wearing by the plaintiff and for the purpose the Goldsmith of the village was called, on the
arrival of the Goldsmith, one of the individuals, standing there paid-off the land revenue on
behalf of the plaintiff and thereafter the defendant left the place along with the Goldsmith
quietly without doing anything.

Thereafter the plaintiff brought an action against defendant for assault but his contention
was rejected by the court on the ground that when the defendant had threatened to
confiscate the gold earrings of the plaintiff at the time he didn't have the ability to execute
his threat but when he got the ability ( after arrival of the Goldsmith) he did not do anything
to execute his threat.

In most of the cases assault precedes battery i.e. when a person points a loaded gun
towards another person, it is an assault but as soon as the bullet from the gun is fired and
hits the person, it becomes a battery. In the same manner, when water is thrown upon a
person, it is assault but as soon as the water falls upon the person, it is battery. Likewise,
when a person is about to sit on a chair and another person pulls it, so long he is in the
process of falling, it is an assault but as soon as the falling person touches the ground, it is
a battery but in some cases an assault does not precede the battery, i.e. attacking
someone from behind.

You might also like