Empress Vs. Baibaya

Empress vs Baibaya

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Jan 11, 1883

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/327218

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/327218
Court: Mumbai
Judge: Melvill and ;Pinhey, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 11, 1883
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 425 - Mischief--Stray cattle. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Empress

Respondent

Baibaya

Legal References

Reported In: (1883)ILR7Bom126

Excerpt

indian penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 425 - mischief--stray cattle. - melvill, j.1. the conduct of the accused does not constitute the offence of which she has been convicted. in order to constitute the offence of mischief it is not sufficient to show that the accused was guilty of carelessness in allowing her goat to stray. the prosecution was bound to show that there was an intention to cause wrongful loss or damage. the same view has been taken by the calcutta and madras high courts in cases reported in 6 bengal law reports, appendix 3, and 6 m h c r 36. the court, therefore, reverses the conviction and sentence, and directs the fine to be returned to the accused.

Full Judgment

Melvill, J.

1. The conduct of the accused does not constitute the offence of which she has been convicted. In order to constitute the offence of mischief it is not sufficient to show that the accused was guilty of carelessness in allowing her goat to stray. The prosecution was bound to show that there was an intention to cause wrongful loss or damage. The same view has been taken by the Calcutta and Madras High Courts in cases reported in 6 Bengal Law Reports, Appendix 3, and 6 M H C R 36. The Court, therefore, reverses the conviction and sentence, and directs the fine to be returned to the accused.

Same Parties Empress vs Baibaya Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Melvill and ;Pinhey, JJ.

Criminal