Critical Analysis Of The Case Bavisetti Venkata Surya Rao Vs. Nandipati Muthayya, AIR 1964 AP 382
- IJLLR Journal
- Feb 17
- 2 min read
Lehar Saini, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
One of the basic tenets of Indian legal system is that every citizen has certain unalienable rights of person and property. The Indian legal system, which was adopted in part from the United Kingdom, has a civilised way of redressing individual right violations.
In this research paper, before analyzing the case of Bavisetti Venkata Surya Rao v Nandipati Muttayya, it is important to introduce certain important elements that might be drawn from the case observations. The paper thus starts with the basic elements as discussed in this case to provide preliminary knowledge of the essence of ‘trespass to person’ and ‘assault’ herewith.
The law of torts recognises several actions in trespass to the person. Its principle was that any direct invasion of a protected interest from a positive act could be challenged provided it was justified. If the invasion is indirect yet predictable or if the invasion is not a positive action, there can be no responsibility for the offence, though the wrongdoer may otherwise have been accountable. Subsequent development has resulted in even further restrictions. Even if the invasion was unintentional and resulted from a positive act, if the defendant's conduct was reasonable, or even though it was unreasonable, whether the invasion was an unforeseeable occurrence, there will be no liability. In this regard, it is important to refer to two decisions: Fowler v Lanning and Letang v Cooper. The two important rules of trespass to person are as follows: Firstly, the defendant has to plead and prove justification and the appellant need not show that the conduct of the defendant was unreasonable. Secondly that damage is not a required factor and need be proved by the appellant. Assault, battery, and false imprisonment are the three major forms of trespass to person. These forms of trespass are sometimes referred to as torts in their own right. A threat or an effort to cause bodily hurt to someone else is regarded as an assault, with the willingness and intent to carry out the act in the present. In an assault, actual contact is not necessary. However, not every threat is an assault when there is no direct bodily violence; the threat must always be supported with means of its implementation. “Any gesture calculated to excite in the party threatened a reasonable apprehension that the party threatening intends immediately to offer violence, or, in the language of the Indian Penal Code, is ‘about to use criminal force’ to the person threatened, constitute, if coupled with a present ability to carry such intention in execution, an assault in law.” An assault is characterized by both the intention and the act. Simply words do not account to assault. However, the words used by the threatening party at that time might give his gestures a meaning that makes them an assault or, on the other hand, prevents them from being an assault.
