MRS. VEEDA MENEZES versus YUSUF KHAN AND ANR.

MRS. VEEDA MENEZES versus YUSUF KHAN AND ANR.

Harm caused deliberately or intentionally can still fall within Section 95 IPC if it is so slight that no reasonable person would complain; physical injury is not excluded from the definition of harm for purposes of general exceptions.

Parties
Appellant: MRS. VEEDA MENEZES; Respondent No. 1: YUSUF KHAN
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 March 1966
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Acquittal From High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; acquittal maintained.
Legal Topics
General Exceptions, Section 95 IPC, Trivial Harm, Physical Injury Under IPC
Criminal Law General Exceptions Section 95 IPC Trivial Harm Physical Injury Under IPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MRS. VEEDA MENEZES

Appellant

YUSUF KHAN

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Acquittal From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 95 applies only to accidental harm and not to deliberate acts
  2. 2 Whether physical injury is outside the purview of Section 95 IPC
  3. 3 Whether the harm caused was so trivial as to not amount to an offence

Ratio Decidendi

Harm caused deliberately or intentionally can still fall within Section 95 IPC if it is so slight that no reasonable person would complain; physical injury is not excluded from the definition of harm for purposes of general exceptions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; acquittal maintained.

Orders

  • Rs. 750 to be paid to the first respondent from costs deposited, balance returned to appellant.