Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on a person. A battery consists of an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification. Factual Situation: Jagan was in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. Jagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Jagan swore at him and refused to move his vehicle and turned the engine off. Jagan was convicted for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Is he liable for battery or assault?a)He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on to the officer's foot was accidental, meaning that he was lacking mens rea when the act causing damage had occurred.b)He is not liable as the act neither amount to an attempt nor a threat to commit a battery that amounts to an actionable tort of assault.c)Jagan's crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery.d)He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidently drove his car on the police officer's foot.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Direction: Apply the legal principles to the...

Join the Discussion on the App

Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.

Legal Principle:

An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on a person.

A battery consists of an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification.

Factual Situation: Jagan was in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. Jagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Jagan swore at him and refused to move his vehicle and turned the engine off. Jagan was convicted for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Is he liable for battery or assault?

a)
He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on to the officer's foot was accidental, meaning that he was lacking mens rea when the act causing damage had occurred.
b)
He is not liable as the act neither amount to an attempt nor a threat to commit a battery that amounts to an actionable tort of assault.
c)
Jagan's crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery.
d)
He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidently drove his car on the police officer's foot.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

AILET Mock Test-9 (New Pattern)

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and se...

As per the above-stated principle, the act of Jagan amounts to battery as whatever he has done, fulfils all the conditions of principle 2, as not removing the car shows his intention to harm the police officer, and he was not justified by the law to do so. The element of "intention" is crucial for establishing an act of assault or battery. Though, the act of driving car on the foot of a police officer initially was unintentional, by refusing not to move the car further even when Jagan was asked to do so by the police officer, in itself, establishes the element of intention formed afterwards. Thus, he is liable for battery.

Hence, the correct option is (C).

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Attention CLAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q.Aman, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend John. Raman, knowing that fact and also that Chetan is not John, willfully represents to Aman that Chetan is John, and thereby intentionally causes Aman to apprehend Chetan. Decide.

View answer

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q. Sabya instigates Lovish to set fire to a dwelling house. Lovish, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of Sabyas instigation. Sabya takes the defence of Lovishs unsoundness. Decide.

View answer

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q. Shikha instigates Madan to murder Shubh. Madan in pursuance of the instigation stabs Shubh. Shubh recovers from the wound. Decide the liability and answer accordingly.

View answer

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q. Siya, in India, instigates North, a foreigner in Pondicherry, to commit a murder in Pondicherry. Who would be held guilty?

View answer

Principle 1 – If an act is done intentionally, the person committing the act would be held liable irrespective of the motive behind the act.Principle 2 - Where it can reasonably be foreseen that an act would cause harm to the person or property of another, the person committing such act will be held liable for acting negligently.Principle 3 – An act committed without intention, accidentally or involuntarily, does not give rise to liability.Facts – Simon was greatly interested in photography, and decided to take a walk in the woods, so he may engage in some wildlife photography. Seeing a butterfly on a bunch of flowers, he kneels behind a bush to get a close shot of it. In the meantime, Adams, who was in the woods to practice shooting, pulls his trigger to shoot a bird. However, he misses his aim, and the dart ricochets off the tree and hits Simon, causing injury to him. In the shock of the moment, Simon lets his expensive camera drop, and the camera is broken. Simon wishes to sue Adams for injury to his person, and for the damage to the camera.

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on a person. A battery consists of an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification. Factual Situation: Jagan was in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. Jagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Jagan swore at him and refused to move his vehicle and turned the engine off. Jagan was convicted for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Is he liable for battery or assault?a)He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on to the officer's foot was accidental, meaning that he was lacking mens rea when the act causing damage had occurred.b)He is not liable as the act neither amount to an attempt nor a threat to commit a battery that amounts to an actionable tort of assault.c)Jagan's crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery.d)He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidently drove his car on the police officer's foot.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on a person. A battery consists of an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification. Factual Situation: Jagan was in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. Jagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Jagan swore at him and refused to move his vehicle and turned the engine off. Jagan was convicted for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Is he liable for battery or assault?a)He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on to the officer's foot was accidental, meaning that he was lacking mens rea when the act causing damage had occurred.b)He is not liable as the act neither amount to an attempt nor a threat to commit a battery that amounts to an actionable tort of assault.c)Jagan's crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery.d)He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidently drove his car on the police officer's foot.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on a person. A battery consists of an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification. Factual Situation: Jagan was in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. Jagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Jagan swore at him and refused to move his vehicle and turned the engine off. Jagan was convicted for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Is he liable for battery or assault?a)He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on to the officer's foot was accidental, meaning that he was lacking mens rea when the act causing damage had occurred.b)He is not liable as the act neither amount to an attempt nor a threat to commit a battery that amounts to an actionable tort of assault.c)Jagan's crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery.d)He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidently drove his car on the police officer's foot.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on a person. A battery consists of an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification. Factual Situation: Jagan was in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. Jagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Jagan swore at him and refused to move his vehicle and turned the engine off. Jagan was convicted for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Is he liable for battery or assault?a)He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on to the officer's foot was accidental, meaning that he was lacking mens rea when the act causing damage had occurred.b)He is not liable as the act neither amount to an attempt nor a threat to commit a battery that amounts to an actionable tort of assault.c)Jagan's crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery.d)He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidently drove his car on the police officer's foot.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on a person. A battery consists of an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification. Factual Situation: Jagan was in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. Jagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Jagan swore at him and refused to move his vehicle and turned the engine off. Jagan was convicted for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Is he liable for battery or assault?a)He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on to the officer's foot was accidental, meaning that he was lacking mens rea when the act causing damage had occurred.b)He is not liable as the act neither amount to an attempt nor a threat to commit a battery that amounts to an actionable tort of assault.c)Jagan's crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery.d)He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidently drove his car on the police officer's foot.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on a person. A battery consists of an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification. Factual Situation: Jagan was in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. Jagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Jagan swore at him and refused to move his vehicle and turned the engine off. Jagan was convicted for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Is he liable for battery or assault?a)He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on to the officer's foot was accidental, meaning that he was lacking mens rea when the act causing damage had occurred.b)He is not liable as the act neither amount to an attempt nor a threat to commit a battery that amounts to an actionable tort of assault.c)Jagan's crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery.d)He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidently drove his car on the police officer's foot.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on a person. A battery consists of an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification. Factual Situation: Jagan was in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. Jagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Jagan swore at him and refused to move his vehicle and turned the engine off. Jagan was convicted for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Is he liable for battery or assault?a)He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on to the officer's foot was accidental, meaning that he was lacking mens rea when the act causing damage had occurred.b)He is not liable as the act neither amount to an attempt nor a threat to commit a battery that amounts to an actionable tort of assault.c)Jagan's crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery.d)He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidently drove his car on the police officer's foot.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on a person. A battery consists of an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification. Factual Situation: Jagan was in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. Jagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Jagan swore at him and refused to move his vehicle and turned the engine off. Jagan was convicted for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Is he liable for battery or assault?a)He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on to the officer's foot was accidental, meaning that he was lacking mens rea when the act causing damage had occurred.b)He is not liable as the act neither amount to an attempt nor a threat to commit a battery that amounts to an actionable tort of assault.c)Jagan's crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery.d)He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidently drove his car on the police officer's foot.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on a person. A battery consists of an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification. Factual Situation: Jagan was in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. Jagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Jagan swore at him and refused to move his vehicle and turned the engine off. Jagan was convicted for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Is he liable for battery or assault?a)He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on to the officer's foot was accidental, meaning that he was lacking mens rea when the act causing damage had occurred.b)He is not liable as the act neither amount to an attempt nor a threat to commit a battery that amounts to an actionable tort of assault.c)Jagan's crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery.d)He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidently drove his car on the police officer's foot.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on a person. A battery consists of an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification. Factual Situation: Jagan was in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. Jagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Jagan swore at him and refused to move his vehicle and turned the engine off. Jagan was convicted for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Is he liable for battery or assault?a)He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on to the officer's foot was accidental, meaning that he was lacking mens rea when the act causing damage had occurred.b)He is not liable as the act neither amount to an attempt nor a threat to commit a battery that amounts to an actionable tort of assault.c)Jagan's crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery.d)He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidently drove his car on the police officer's foot.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam