Skip to content


Marigounda and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Ragavachar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1911)21MLJ843
AppellantMarigounda and anr.
RespondentSrinivasa Ragavachar
Cases ReferredR. v. Owen
Excerpt:
- - 1769, we find :maiming' is a term of well known import in english law and is the same as 'mayhem' which meant the deprivation of a member proper for defence in fight.orderphilips, j.1. the question is whether cutting off the ears of a horse amounts to 'maiming' within the meaning of section 429. i.p.c. in criminal revision case 583 of 1910, munro j. was of opinion that the cutting off the ear and tail of a buffalo did not amount to maiming but he gives no reasons. with all due defence, i am unable to accede to this view, if it can be said that the facts here are the same as in that case. maiming is not defined in the indian penal code, but the definition given in webster's dictionary is 'the privation of the use of a limb or member of the body by which one is rendered less able to defend himself or annoy his adversary. the privation of any necessary part - crippling, mutilation, injury, deprivation of something essential.' in gour's penal law of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Philips, J.

1. The question is whether cutting off the ears of a horse amounts to 'maiming' within the meaning of Section 429. I.P.C. In Criminal Revision Case 583 of 1910, Munro J. was of opinion that the cutting off the ear and tail of a buffalo did not amount to maiming but he gives no reasons. With all due defence, I am unable to accede to this view, if it can be said that the facts here are the same as in that case. Maiming is not defined in the Indian Penal Code, but the definition given in Webster's Dictionary is 'The privation of the use of a limb or member of the body by which one is rendered less able to defend himself or annoy his adversary. The privation of any necessary part - crippling, mutilation, injury, deprivation of something essential.' In Gour's Penal Law of India, p. 1769, we find : 'maiming' is a term of well known import in English Law and is the same as 'mayhem' which meant the deprivation of a member proper for defence in fight. It has, however, since acquired a wider significance, and now means the privation of the use of a limb or member and implies a permanent injury. It does not then mean wounding, but wounding is otherwise injuring so us td entail a permanent injury. In Regina v. Richard Jeans (1844) 1 Car & Kirw 539 removing the end of a horse's tongue was held not to be maiming on the ground that no permanent injury was inflicted - the horse being able to eat and drink but unable to eat quite so fast as before. The blinding of a mare's eye by pouring nitrous acid into it was held to be maiming R. v. Owen (1828) M.C.C.R. 205. Cutting off the ears does not mean the removal of the whole organ of hearing, but it is, I think, a permanent injury to one of the members of the body in that it must permanently affect the sense of hearing, and it is certainly a. mutilation which is also one of the definitions in Webester's Dictionary. Stress is laid on the permanency of the injury in the two English cases cited, vide also RUSSEL on Crimes, Vol. II, p. 976. I therefore hold that the cutting off the ears of a horse amounts to maiming. The petition is accordingly dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //