TORTS AGAINST

PERSON
[ ASSAULT , BATTERY , DEFAMATION , FALSE IMPRISONMENT &

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ]
BHAVYA SINHA

A8111120108

BA.LL.B ( HONS )

SSEMESTER 1

BATCH 2020-25
 ASSAULT

• Assault is an act of the defendant which causes to the plaintiff

reasonable apprehension of the infliction of a battery on him by
the defendant.
• When the defendant by his act creates an apprehension in the
mind of the plaintiff that he is going to commit battery against the
plaintiff , the wrong of assault is completed.
• Example : Pointing a loaded pistol at another is an assault. If the
pistol is not loaded , then even it may be an assault. The test is
whether an apprehension has been created in mind of the plaintiff
that battery is going to be committed against him. If the plaintiff
knows that the pistol is unloaded , there is no assault.
 ESSENTIALS OF ASSAULT
1) An act or conduct intended to created: To prove a criminal attack, the defendants’
behaviour must be motivated to create a situation of fear or danger in the victim’s mind.
Accidental acts do not include allegations of assault.
2) A reasonable apprehension: Further, the victim must reasonably believe that the
defendant’s conduct will harm or humiliate him. The victim must understand the
defendant’s potentially harmful or offensive acts.
3) Of imminent harm: The victim’s fear must be a direct response to a threat that is
imminent. Future threats, such as “I will beat you whenever I will meet you again”, will
not result in assault charges. In addition, there must be some kind of perceived physical
threat to the victim in the loss; For this reason, words by themselves generally do not
constitute an attack.
 R.V. CONSTANZA
Facts
A man was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm of a female ex-colleague. For a
period of almost two years, the man followed the women home from work, made numerous
silent phone calls, wrote her over 800 letters, drove past her house, visited her house without
consent, and wrote offensive words on her house’s door three times. Following these actions,
she received two additional letters with threatening language. She was soon diagnosed by a
doctor as suffering from clinical depression and anxiety due to apprehended fear caused by the
man’s actions and letters.
Issue
(1) Whether the man’s words alone, without any physical action against the victim, could
constitute an assault and
(2) whether there was an apprehended fear of immediate and unlawful violence in order to
constitute an assault under.
CONT’D

Held –
The Court stipulated that words alone can constitute an assault, without the presence of
physical action, if they cause the victim to apprehend a fear of immediate violence.
Concerning the temporal aspect of the fear of violence, the Court held that, for the purposes
of proving an assault, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the victim feared violence “at some
time not excluding the immediate future.” The Court held that this element was fulfilled,
placing emphasis upon the close proximity of the man’s house to the victim’s and his
delivery of the most recent letters to her house. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal
and upheld the conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm caused solely by words.
 BATTERY
The wrong of battery consists in intentional application of force to another
person without any lawful justification.
 There are two types of battery –

1) Criminal Battery : Criminal Battery is also known as the battery as a

crime. Whenever there is an intention to kill a person or to hurt the
person with an offensive physical contact is considered as the battery
of crime.
2) Civil Battery : Civil Battery is also known as the battery as a tort
because it is a civil wrong. When a person has no intention to hurt
someone but commits an act which hurts another person and the
wrongdoer had an idea that the act will hurt another person is known
as a civil battery.
 ESSENTIALS OF BATTERY

1) Use Of Force : Even though the force used is very trivial and does not cause any harm ,
the wrong is still constituted. Least touching of another in anger is battery. The force
maybe used even without bodily contact with the aggressor like use of stick , bullet ,
making a person fall by pulling his chair away etc.
2) Without Lawful Justification : It is essential that the use of force should be intentional
and without any lawful justification. Harm voluntarily suffered and harm which is
unintentional and pure accident is no harm.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ASSAULT & BATTERY
 COMPARISON

Parameters of Assault Battery

Comparison

Principle It creates reasonable apprehension in It includes use of force without lawful

the plaintiff’s mind. justification.

Important Aspect It refers to threat of violence. It refers to Physical contact.

Objective The objective is to threaten a person. The objective is to cause harm.

Nature It is not necessarily physical. It must be physical.

 DEFAMATION
• Defamation as the meaning of the word suggests is an injury to the
reputation of a person resulting from a statement which is false.
• A man’s reputation is treated as his property and if any person poses
damage to property he is liable under the law, similarly, a person
injuring the reputation of a person is also liable under the law.
• Defamation is defined in section 499 of Indian Penal Code 1860 and
section 500 provides that a person committing an offense under this
section is liable with simple imprisonment for a term of 2 years or
fine or with both.
CONT’D
Forms of Defamation –
 Indian Law

1) Criminal Defamation: Criminal defamation is the act of offending or defaming a person by committing a crime or
offence. For criminal defamations, you could always get the liable person or party prosecuted. It is studied in IPC as
a criminal act.
2) Civil Defamation: Civil defamation involves no criminal offence, but on account of this kind of defamation, you
could sue the person to get a legal compensation for your defamation. It is studied under law of torts i.e. as a civil
wrong.
 English Law:

1) Libel : Libel is a representation made in a permanent form like writing, movie, picture etc. For e.g., X printed some
advertisement saying Y is bankrupt but Y was not thus it was representation in a specific form.
2) Slander : Slander, on the other hand is the publication of a defamatory statement in transient form like spoken words
or gestures. For e.g., A questions the chastity of B in an interview, A is slanderous.
 ESSENTIALS OF DEFAMATION
1. The statement must be defamatory – The very first essential of the offense of
defamation is that the statement must be defamatory i.e. which tends to lower the reputation
of the plaintiff. The test to check if a particular statement is defamatory or not will depend
upon how the right thinking members of society are likely to take it. Further, a person cannot
take a defense that the statement was not intended to be defamatory, although it caused a
feeling of hatred, contempt or dislike.
2. The statement must refer to the plaintiff – In an action for defamation, the plaintiff has
to prove that the statement of which he Complains referred to him, it will be immaterial that
the defendant did not intend to defame the plaintiff. If the person to whom the statement was
published could reasonably infer that the statement referred to him, the defendant will then be
liable.
CONT’D

3. The statement must be published – Publication of defamatory statement to some person

other than the person defamed is a most important aspect for making any person liable, and
unless that is done, no action for defamation will lie. However, if a third person wrongfully
reads a letter meant for the plaintiff, then the defendant likely to be liable. But if the
defamatory letter sent to the plaintiff is likely to be read by somebody else, there will be a
valid publication.
 FALSE IMPRISONMENT
• Wrongful imprisonment occurs when a person (who does not have the
legal right or justification) is intentionally restricts another person
from exercising his freedom. When someone intentionally restricts
another person’s freedom, he can be found liable for false
imprisonment in civil and criminal courts.
• Under criminal law, whether the restraint is total or partial, the same is
actionable. When the restraint is total and the person is prevented from
going out of certain circumscribed limits, the offence is that of
‘wrongful confinement’ as defined in Section 340 of IPC.
 ESSENTIALS OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT

1. Wilful detention - False imprisonment or restraint must be intentional or wilful. Accidentally

closing the door when someone is on the other side is not a wrongful confinement or false
imprisonment. Wilful detention applies to intentional restraint in any form, including physically
restraining a person from exiting, physically locking him in a building, room, or from other places,
and restraining him from leaving through force or intimidation.
2. The intention factor - Generally, the tort of false imprisonment must be intentional. A person is
not liable for false imprisonment unless his or her act is done for the purpose of imposing a
confinement or with knowledge that such confinement, to a substantial certainty will result from it.
for this tort, Malice is irrelevant . It is ordinarily upon the judges to determine from the evidence, as a
question of fact, the intention of the defendant in an action for false imprisonment.
CONT’D

3. Knowledge of the plaintiff - The detention of another person would have been wrong.
There is no requirement that the plaintiff claiming another person for false imprisonment was
aware of his restraint on his freedom at the time of his confinement.
 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

• Malicious prosecution is the malicious intention of unsuccessful

criminal or bankruptcy or liquidation proceedings against another
without reasonable or probable cause.
• Generally, it can be said that the malicious prosecution is defined as
a judicial proceeding instituted by one person against another, from
wrongful or improper motive, without any reasonable and probable
cause to justify it.
 ESSENTIALS OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
1. Prosecution by the defendant - The first essential element which the plaintiff is required to prove in a suit
for damages for malicious prosecution is that he (plaintiff) was prosecuted by the defendant. The word
“prosecution” carries a wider sense than a trial and includes criminal proceedings by way of appeal, or
revision. It is significant to note that departmental enquiry by disciplinary authority cannot be called
prosecution.
2. Absence of reasonable and probable cause - In a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff
has also required to prove that the defendant prosecuted him without reasonable and probable cause. The
question relating to want of reasonable and probable cause in a suit for malicious prosecution should be
decided on all facts before the Court. The existence of reasonable and probable cause is of no avail if the
prosecutor prosecuted in ignorance of it.
CONT’D
3. Defendant acted maliciously - In a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, it is
another essential element which the plaintiff is required to prove that the defendant acted
maliciously in prosecuting him and not with a mere intention of carrying the law into effect.
Malice need not be a feeling of enmity, spite or ill will or spirit of vengeance but it can be
any improper purpose which motivates the prosecutor, such as to gain a private collateral
advantage.
4. Termination of proceedings in the favour of the plaintiff - In a suit for damages for
malicious prosecution, it is essential to show that the proceedings complained of terminated
in favour of the plaintiff. Termination in favour of the plaintiff does not mean judicial
determination of his innocence; it means absence of judicial determination of his guilt.
Malice need not be a feeling of enmity, spite or ill will or spirit of vengeance but it can be
any improper purpose which motivates the prosecutor, to gain a private collateral
advantage.
CONT’D

5. Plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the prosecution - In a suit for damages for
malicious prosecution, it is another essential element which the plaintiff is required to
prove that The plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the prosecution. In a claim for
prosecution, the plaintiff can thus claim damages on the following three counts –
• Damage to the plaintiff’s reputation,
• Damage to the plaintiff’s person,
• Damage to the plaintiff’s property.