Answer
Consent:
Story defines consent as an act of reason accompanied with deliberation, he mind weighing as in a balance, the good and evil on each side. S. 90 of the Pakistan Penal Code defines consent in a negative form. Its says that consent is not a true consent if it is given:
(i) by a person under fear of injury, or
(ii) under a misconception of the fact and the person obtaining the consent knows or has reason to believe that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception.
(iii) if the consent is given by a person of unsound mind,
(iv) under intoxication, or
(v) under twelve years of age, and who is unable to understand the result and consequence of that to which he gives his consent.
Act done by consent:
Ss. 87 to 89 and 91 of the Pakistan Penal Code deal with cases where consent is a justification for committing a crime. In the first place Section 87 lays down that a person who causes injury to another’ ;person above eighteen rears of age, who has given his consent to suffer the harm by doing an act which is not knowing by the doer to he likely to cause death or grievous hurt, does not commit an office.
Illustration
A and Z agree to fence with each other or amusement. This agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any harm which in the course of such fencing, may he caused without foul play and if A. while playing fairly hurts Z, A commits no offence. The principle of this section is based upon :he maxim violent non fit injuries i.e.. that to which a man consents cannot be considered an Injury. For every person is he best judge of his own interest and no man will consent to what he thinks harmful to himself.
In good faith:
In the second place, Section of lays down that nothing which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to he likely to cause, to any person fir whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.
Illustration
A, a surgeon. knowing that particular operation likely to cause the death of Z ho suffers und.” a painful complaint, hut not intending to cause his death, and intending in good faith, Z’s benefit, performs that operation on Z, with Z’s consent. A has committed no offence. Persons not qualified as medical practitioners cant g, however claim the benefit of this section as they can hardly satisfy a Court that they had undertaken the operation in good faith as defined in S. z, for good faith means a conscientious belief hat they had skill to perform the operation. while the supposition is that they were unskilled and ignorant.
By the consent of guardian:
In the third place, S. 89 empowers the guardian of an infant under twelve years or of an insane person to consent to inflict harm on the infant or the insane person, provided it is done in good faith and is done for his benefit. No consent, however, can justify intentional causing of death.
Illustration
A, in good faith, for his child’s benefit without his child’s consent, has his child cut for the stone by a surgeon, knowing it, to he likely that the operation will cause the child’s death, but not intending to cause the child’s death. A is protected by the provision of this section, inasmuch as his object was the cure of the child.
Independently offence:
In the fourth place, S. 91 does not extend the protection to offences which are offences independently of any harm which they cause, or be intended to cause, or be known likely to cause, to the person giving the consent, or on whose behalf the consent is given. To illustrate, causing miscarriage is an offence independently of any harm which it may cause or be intended to cause to the woman. Therefore, it is not an offence “by reason of such harm” and the consent of the woman or of her guardian to the causing of such miscarriage does not justify the act.
Ans: (b)
The relevant provision on the subject is contained in Section 83 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. It provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age andijnder twelve who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding, judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on the occasion.
To read this provision otherwise would mean that a child who has attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on the occasion could be held guilty, it is based on the principles that “militia soppiest astern” i.e. malice supplement age. It is dependent upon rebuttal presumption. If it is proved the satisfaction of the Court that child above seven years and under twelve had sufficient maturity of understanding he shall be held guilty.
Illustration
A boy of ten years was sitting and nearby a dagger was lying. On his opposite another man was sitting with whom the family relations were non-harmonious. Suddenly the boy got enraged and addressing the man said that he would pick up the dagger and plunge the same into his belly and saying so \he actually plunged the dagger into the man’s belly that subsequently died. Normally it is an act of juvenile and the trial of juveniles is done by a District Magistrate and they are sent in Reformatory School but in this case the crime was a murder and the boy shall be sent for trial in Sessions, The reason being that the boy has attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of this conduct on the that occasion when he said that he would pickup the dagger and plunge it into mc mans belly
Example:
1.Where the accused was engaged in a fight in which a woman intervened whereupon they aimed a blow at
her, but it accidentally killed the infant she was carrying. It was held that the case was not protected by the provisions of Section 80 as the assault on the woman was a wrongful act.
2. Where two persons went out to shoot animals and agreed to take up certain position in the jungle and lie
in wait, but after a while the accused heard a rustle and believing it to be an animal fired in that direction
hut the shot killed his companion, the case was held to he one of pure accident. Although the gun used was an
unlicensed one.
Ans: ©The relevant provision on the subject is contained in Section 83 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. It provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven year of age and under twelve who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding, judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on the occasion. To read this provision otherwise would mean that a child who has attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequence of his conduction the occasion can be held guilty. Ii is based on the principles that “militia supplest actatem” i.e.. Malice supplements age.
It is dependent upon rebuttal presumption it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that child above seven years and indeed twelve had stifficent maturity of understanding he shall be held guilty
Illustration
A boy of ten years was sitting, and nearby a dagger was lying. On his opposite another man was sitting with whom the family relations were non-harmonious. Suddenly the boy got enraged and addressing the man said that he would pick up the dagger and plunge the same into his belly and saying so he actually plunged the dagger into the mans belly that subsequently died. Normally it is an act of juvenile and the trial of juveniles is done by a District Magistrate and they are sent in Reformatory School but in this case the crime was a murder and the by shall be sent for trial in Sessions. The reason being that the boy .has attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of this conduct on that occasion when he said that he would pickup the dagger and plunge it into the man’s belly. On the contrary, it is proved in a case that the child though of ten years had not attained sufficient maturity of understanding he shall not be held guilty. Therefore, it depends upon circumstances in each case.
v>