Answer
Ans:
Definition of Ikrah:
Ikrah is to compel without right, a in to do thing without his consent or by fear. Coercion whether exercised by threats or violence or confinement or by actual application of force is an infringement of a mans right to freedom of action.
Explanation:
“Coercion has been defined as an action which one does under compulsion by some one else, to which he does not consent.
The effect of duress or coercion an the legal effect of man’s act done under such influence has three aspects:
I. how far the act is valid or effective;
2. how far the doer is responsible to a third Person who may be injuriously affected by act;
3. what is the responsibility of the coerce towards the doer of the act and towards any third person who may be affected thereby.
The last aspect of the question appertains mainly, if not solely, Wi law of torts or wrongs, while the second aspect of the question is capable of being regarded from two fold stand points as a tort from point of view of the third person affected by the act, and from the of the doer as to how far the effect of coercion .an his will affects the normal consequences of his act.
div>
Condition for coercion:
Coercion is the compelling of someone to do something by suggestion and threat. Coercion to ‘ye responsibility, is governed by certain conditions. There are:
(i) Capable:
The compiler must be capable of carrying out the threatened harm. That is why Abu Hanifa says that coercion can only be carried out by a person in power.
(ii) Risk:
( The compelled person must believe that if he does not comply with the compiler demands, the harm promised by the compiler will inflict upon him.
( (iii) Nature:
( The coercion does not look to the violation of property or other legal right such as the selling or damaging of one’s property or the damaging of someone else’s property or accusing him falsely, or drinking alcohol, or committing adultery.
( (iv)Sense of fear:
( When the person is being compelled to must injure oneself or unlawfully induce a sense of fear.
Kind of Ikrah:
1. lkrah-e-tam
2. lkrah-e-Naqis
I. Ikrah-e-Tam:
lkrah-e-Tam mean putting any person spouse, or any of his blood relations with the prohibited degree marriage in fear of instant death, or instant permanent impairing any organ of body or instant fear of being subjected to sodomy Zina-bil-jabr.
2. Ikrah-Naqis:
“Ikrah-e-Naqis”: means any form of dui which does not amount to lkrah-e-Tam, The two definitions together are very wide. These do not state the reasons or object duress. A Qati committed in the circumstances of lkrah-e-Tarn Ikrah-e-Naqis immovable two persons.
Firstly,, the person who causes Ikrah-e-Tam or lkrah-e-Na i.e., puts another person under duress,
Secondly, who is subjected to duress, i.e., lkrah-e-Tai Ikrah-e-Naqis. Both of them, i.e. person committing QatI tin Ikrah-e-Tam and Ikrah-e-Naqis and the person causing lkrah-e-Ta and lkrah-e-Naqis seem have been made, liable to punishment under Section 302, P.P.C. The Court will therefore be under onerous duty to determine the precise nature of offence committed by each of them.
Punishment for Qati committed under Ikrah-e-Tam or lkrah-e-Naqis:
Whoever commits Qatl.
(a) under lkrah-e-Tam shall be punished with imprisonment for a term winch may extend to twenty-five years but shall not be less than ten years and the person causing lkrah-e-Tam shall be punished for the kind of Qatl’ Committed as a consequence of his lkrah-e-Tam; or
(b) under lkrah-e-Naqis shall be punished for the kind of qatl committed by him and the person causing. Ikrah-Naqis shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years.
Proof:
(i) Conviction and sentence under Section 303. Not warranted absence of the proof of the essential ingredient of offence under, Section 303 that murder was
Committed while accused was serving sentence of life imprisonment. Answers by accused to question in course of his examination under Section 342, Cr. P.C. cannot be used as ,evidence against him to fulfil requirements of S.303.
(ii) Conviction under S.303 awarded by Trial Court found by High Court unsustainable conviction altered to conviction under Section 302 in view of overwhelming evidence produced by prosecution in support of murder charge. Held: As appellant had not caused fatal injury to deceased and had merely caught hold of him when he was stabbed by co-accused it would not be proper to award death sentence to appellant. Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine, High Court also maintained appellants’ convictions and sentences under Ss. 332 and 353.
Conviction and death sentence awarded by Trial Court to appellant for double murder in jail premises where appellant and, deceased serving sentences of imprisonment. On appeal High un finding that there being conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence, ocular evidence was not liable and circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to support conviction, Appeal allowed id conviction and death sentence of appellant set aside.
QATL-I-AMD & QISAS