Explanation
B has not committed theft. Since, theft is committed when an immovable property is taken dishonestly from the possession of any person without his consent.
As per the facts, even though A was the owner of the watch but he had transferred the possession of the watch to B for safe keeping and therefore the person whose consent to move the watch was required is B himself. Since he had the possession of A's watch. Therefore, B has not committed theft.
No person in the name of private defence is allowed to use more force than is required. According to the principle of private defence one is allowed to use reasonable force to save his life and property . This principle is incorporated under section 96-106 of IPC.
Nitin on apprehension that Naman with his friends will hurt him, throws boiling tea over Naman, it was an act done in private defence. Since Nitin was apprehended by immediate harm from Naman and his friends.Therefore, Nitin has not committed any offence as he was defending himself.
The SC in the case of Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharastra, AIR 2008 SC 3077 held that "the right to speedy trial in all criminal persecutions is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right is applicable not only to theactual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations as well. The right to speedy trial extends equally to all criminal persecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases."
Please disable the adBlock and continue. Thank you.