The assault is generally an attempt to harm someone else which also includes threats against other people. So, assault is a planned attempt to violently harm another person.

An assault is a threat or attempt to do a corporeal hurt to another, coupled with an apparent physical ability and intention to do the act. Actual contact isn’t necessary in an assault. But it is not every threat, where there is no actual personal violence that constitutes an assault; there must, in all cases, be means of carrying that threat into effect.
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 into execution, an assault in law.

The intention as well as the act makes an assault.
Therefore, if one strikes upon the hand, or arm, or breast in discourse, it is no assault, there being no intention to assault; but if one, intending to assault, strikes at another and misses him, this is an assault; so if he holds up his hand against another, in a threatening manner, and says nothing, it is an assault.

Three elements must be established in order to establish tortious assault:
First, the plaintiff apprehended immediate physical contact,
Second, the plaintiff had reasonable apprehension (the requisite state of mind) and
Third, the defendant’s act of interference was intentional (the defendant intended the resulting apprehension).
But intent for purposes of civil assault can be either general or specific. Specific intent means that when the defendant acted, he or she intended to cause apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact. General intent means that the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the action would put someone in apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact.

Bavisetti Venkat Surya Rao v. Nandipati Muthayya

, Plaintiff owed a certain amount to the defendant which he was unable to pay. The defendant, in order to collect the amount thought to visit plaintiff’s house and sell some movables to recollect the amount. The defendant called a goldsmith to evaluate the value of gold in the house of plaintiff, but the person standing at the time of such evaluation near the house borrowed the amount from another to give it to the defendant, and after the defendant had taken the amount, the plaintiff sued him for assault. It was held that since the defendants, after the arrival of the Goldsmith said nothing and did nothing and the threat of use of force by the goldsmith to the plaintiff was too remote a possibility to have put the plaintiff in fear of immediate or instant violence, there was no assault.

Fagan v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis;

Fagan was sitting in his car when he was approached by a police officer who asked him to take the vehicle. Fagan did so, overturned his car and rolled over a police officer’s leg. The officer forcefully asked him to remove the car from his leg, to which Fagan swore him and refused to take the vehicle and shut down the engine. Fagan was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Fagan later appealed the decision. The court held that, Although assault is an independent crime and is to be treated as such, for practical purposes today, assault is generally synonymous with battery. On this basis, it was held that Fagan’s crime was not the refusal to move the car but that having driven on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery. This meant that actus Reus and mens rea were present and as such, an assault was committed. Fagan’s conviction was upheld.

R v. Constanza

; A man was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm of a female ex-colleague. For a period of almost two years, the man followed the women home from work, made numerous silent phone calls, wrote her over 800 letters, drove past her house, visited her house without consent, and wrote offensive words on her house’s door three times. Following these actions, she received two additional letters with threatening language. She was soon diagnosed by a doctor as suffering from clinical depression and anxiety due to apprehended fear caused by the man’s actions and letters. A man was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm of a female ex-colleague. For a period of almost two years, the man followed the women home from work, made numerous silent phone calls, wrote her over 800 letters, drove past her house, visited her house without consent, and wrote offensive words on her house’s door three times. Following these actions, she received two additional letters with threatening language. She was soon diagnosed by a doctor as suffering from clinical depression and anxiety due to apprehended fear caused by the man’s actions and letters.

Meaning – In civil assault, to sue the respondent for the full extent of his loss, including lost earnings and pain and suffering of the past and future. If the respondent is convicted, he may be imprisoned, and may also have to pay a fine and reinstatement. But the fine would be paid to the government, and restitution would most likely cover only the medical bills, not your non-economic losses such as pain and suffering stemming from the incident.

Procedure – In civil assault case, a District Attorney is not involved. The matter is brought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has more control in the case of civil assault.

In criminal Assault, after an attack, the victim should report to the police. The police will then make an arrest, take action on the alleged attacker and refer the case to the District Attorney.

Punishment – A win for the District Attorney, results in jail term, a fine, or both. When the plaintiff wins, the defendant will not go to jail, but will have to pay financial compensation.

LEGAL DEFENCES ON CHARGE OF ASSAULT

As with other types of criminal charges, there may be some defenses to assault charges. This will depend on each individual case, as well as other factors such as state law. Faults commonly charged with assault charges include:
Self-defense: This could be a defense if the defendant was acting out of self-defense. They should only use the amount or display of force that is appropriate in the situation and in proportion to the force being used against them.
Intoxication: In some cases, intoxication can be a legal defense, especially in cases where intoxication affects a person’s ability to act intentionally.
Coercion: This may be a defense if the defendant was forced to attack under threat of harm (for example, if they are being held at gunpoint and for assault at the behest of someone).
Lack of proof: As stated above, if the elements of proof are not found or supported with the correct evidence, it can serve as a legal defense.

REMEDIES

Action for damages-

Whenever the plaintiff has been wrongfully detained, he can always bring an action to claim damages. Compensation may be claimed not only for injury to the liberty but also for disgrace and humiliation which may be caused thereby. According to McGregor on damages, the details of how the damages worked in false imprisonment are few: generally, it is not a pecuniary loss or of dignity and is left to the jury and their discretion. The principle heads for damage would appear to be the injury to liberty, i.e., the loss of time considered primarily from a non-pecuniary viewpoint, and the injury to feelings, i.e., the dignity, mental suffering, disgrace and humiliation with any attendant loss of social status.

Self help –

This is the remedy which is available to a person who while he is still under detention instead of waiting for legal action and procuring his release thereby.

Habeas Corpus –

It is speedier remedy for procuring the release of a person who is wrongfully detained. Such a writ may be issued either by the Supreme Court under Article 32 or by a High Court under Article 226 of Indian Constitution. By this writ person detaining is required to produce the detained person before the court and justify the detention. If the court finds the detention is without any just or reasonable ground, it will order that the person detained should be immediately released.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.