<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1987 (4) TMI 503 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465609</link>
    <description>Section 79 IPC protects only acts done in good faith under a mistake of fact, and good faith requires due care and attention under Section 52 IPC. On the facts, the surrounding circumstances did not support an honest and reasonable belief that the deceased was a thief, as the accused knew the deceased had attended the recital and had gone towards the pond to retrieve his utensil. Force was used on a vulnerable part of the body, and the facts did not establish self-defence or lawful justification. The defence of mistake of fact therefore failed, while the circumstances still supported culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC because intention to kill was not shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2026 14:20:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=875488" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (4) TMI 503 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465609</link>
      <description>Section 79 IPC protects only acts done in good faith under a mistake of fact, and good faith requires due care and attention under Section 52 IPC. On the facts, the surrounding circumstances did not support an honest and reasonable belief that the deceased was a thief, as the accused knew the deceased had attended the recital and had gone towards the pond to retrieve his utensil. Force was used on a vulnerable part of the body, and the facts did not establish self-defence or lawful justification. The defence of mistake of fact therefore failed, while the circumstances still supported culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC because intention to kill was not shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465609</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>