Skip to content


Marigowda and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Rangachar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1912)ILR35Mad594
AppellantMarigowda and anr.
RespondentSrinivasa Rangachar
Cases ReferredRex v. Owens
Excerpt:
indian penal cods, section 429 - cutting off the ears of a horse is 'maiming' within section. - - ' in gour's penal law of india,'page 1769, we 'find' maming '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......or to annoy 'his adversary. (2) the privation of any necessary cart; a crippling; mutilation; injury; deprivation of something essential.' in gour's penal law of india,' page 1769, we 'find' 'maming ' 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 'impliea a permanent injury. it does not then mean merely' 'wounding,' but wounding or otherwise injuring so as to entail a permanent injury.' in regina v. jeans (1814) 1 cra & kirm 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.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Phillips, J.

1. The question is whether cutting off the ears of a horse amounts to 'maiming' within the meaning of Section 429, Indian Penal Coda. In criminal Revision Case No. 583 of 1910 Munro, J., was of opinion that cutting off the ear and tail of a buffalo did not amount to maiming, but he gives no reasons. With all due deference 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 '(1) The 'privation of the use of a limb or member of the body, by which one is rendered less able to defend himself or to annoy 'his adversary. (2) The privation of any necessary cart; a crippling; mutilation; injury; deprivation of something essential.' In Gour's Penal Law of India,' page 1769, we 'find' 'maming ' 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 'impliea a permanent injury. It does not then mean merely' 'wounding,' but wounding or otherwise injuring so as to entail a permanent injury.' in Regina v. Jeans (1814) 1 Cra & Kirm 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 [Rex v. Owens (1828) 1 M.C.C. 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 Webster's Dictionary, Stress is laid on the permanency of the injury in the two English cases cited--side also 'Russell on Crimes,' volume II, page 976. I therefore hold that cutting off the ears of a horse does amount to maiming. The petition is accordingly dismissed.


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