Question

LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
(1) Battery is the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent.
(2) When lawfully exercising power of arrest of some other statutory power a police officer had greater rights than an ordinary citizen to restrain another.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Two police officers on duty in a police car observed two women in the street who appeared to be soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. One of the women was known to the police as a prostitute but the other, X , was not a known prostitute. When the police officers requested X to get into the car for questioning she refused to do so and instead walked away from the car. One of the officers, a policewoman, got out of the car and followed X in order to question her regarding her identity and conduct and to caution her, if she was suspected of being a prostitute in accordance with the approved police procedure for administering cautions for suspicious behaviour before charging a woman with being a prostitute X refused to speak to the policewoman took hold of X's arm to detain her. X then swore at the policewoman and scratched the officers' arm with her fingernails. X was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty. She appealed against the conviction, contending that when the assault occurred the officer was not exercising her power of arrest and was acting beyond the scope of her duty in detaining X by taking hold of her arm. The police contended that the officer was not exercising her power of arrest and was acting beyond the scope of her duty in detaining X by taking hold of her arm. The police contended that the officer was acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred because the officer had good cause to detain X for the purpose of questioning her to see whether a caution for suspicious behaviour should be administered. Decide whether the police officer is liable for battery?
DECIDE.

• A. X is liable for trespass on the person of a police officer while performing her official duty
• B. The police woman had not been exercising her power of arrest when she detained X, and since in taking hold of the appellant's arm to detain her the policewoman's conduct went beyond acceptable lawful physical contact between two citizens, hence the officer's act constituted a battery on X and that she had not been acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred
• C. The fact that the reason the police officer detained X was to caution her regarding her suspicious behaviour render the officer's conduct lawful if in detaining her she used a degree of physical contact that went beyond lawful physical contact as between two ordinary citizens
• D. The police officer was on duty and performing her duty in the regular course of the work so is not liable for battery

Answer 1

Answer: (B)

The police woman had not been exercising her power of arrest when she detained X, and since in taking hold of the appellant's arm to detain her the policewoman's conduct went beyond acceptable lawful physical contact between two citizens, hence the officer's act constituted a battery on X and that she had not been acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred

Battery is a term used in tort law and is not used under the IPC. However, the word 'criminal force' is used instead of 'Battery and is defined under section 350 of IPC.

when lawfully exercising the power of arrest a police officer has more power and greater rights than an ordinary citizen to restrain another. Thus, they can use force to retain another person under arrest.

But in this case, the policewoman has not exercised her power of arrest when she detained X And took hold of X's arm while detaining her.

And since this amounts to using force more than what is acceptable and since it was not done while exercising lawful power of arrest by the policewoman.

Therefore, it does not fall under the exception given. And thus, the policewoman has committed the offence of criminal force.