REPLY 4

REPLY 4

Table of Contents
REPLY 4......................................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY...............................................................................................................................3
REFERANCES............................................................................................................................4

MAIN BODY
In this as Kate cause bodily harm to Neil which is a fact and as per sec. 47 Offense
against the person Act, 1861. but another factor which is more important to consider in this
that Neil expected and told Kate to be violent towards him (Prueksamas, 2019). In this Kate
intentionally hurt Neil but it cannot be considered as serious offense as she does not intended
to do any grievous bodily harm as Neil told her to wound him to an extent possible. Sec. 18 of
the act includes intentional bodily harm which can be considered as grievous bodily harm.
This is considered as serious offense as wounds and harm to Neil and specially not
intentionally. The harm which Kate cause to Neil was known to her and more than that it was
told to her.
Another point is that as per sec 19 of the act which includes offense which includes
loaded arms with gunpowder such as pistol, Gun and Kate does not committed anything which
included such arms (Eugenicos, 2017). Another point is that as per sec. 20 any person who
inflict any type of bodily injury with or without weapon, such person can be considered guilty
of Misdemeanour and not person guilty of serious offense.
On the basis of above analysis it can be considered that in no manner Kate can be
considered as serious offender, because her crime does not come in that category and other
than that more important factor to consider is that Neil was always aware about the Kate's
offense, and he himself told and convinced her to harm him.

REFERANCES
Books and Journals
Eugenicos, A. M., 2017. Should We Reform the Offences Against the Person Act 1861?. The
Journal of Criminal Law. 81(1). pp.26-32.
Prueksamas, B. G., 2019. Admissible Evidences in Court against Age of Child Trafficking in
Court. Suan Sunandha Academic and Research Review. 13(1). pp.1-14.