Legal Principles and Doctrines

Prima facie is a Latin expression meaning 'at first sight' or 'on the face of it.' It refers to evidence that is sufficient to establish a fact unless disproved. In legal contexts, it describes a case that has enough evidence to proceed unless the defense successfully disproves it.

Ashby v. White (1703) established the maxim 'injuria sine damno' - injury without damage. Voters were denied their right to vote; even though no material loss was proved, the court held the violation of a legal right itself constituted injury. Donoghue v. Stevenson established negligence, Ryland v. Fletcher established strict liability.

An accused can be compelled to give fingerprints (i) and participate in identification parade (iii) as these are considered evidence, not testimony. However, Article 20(3) and the right against self-incrimination protect an accused from being compelled to give evidence against themselves (ii). The Constitution protects against testimonial compulsion, not physical evidence like fingerprints.

The legal maxim 'Qui facit per alium facit per se' means 'He who acts through another acts himself'. This fundamental principle of agency law establishes that an agent's actions within authority are attributed to the principal. It's the foundation of vicarious liability and the entire agency relationship in law.

Res ipsa loquitur ('the thing speaks for itself') is a doctrine in the law of evidence. It allows negligence to be inferred when the accident would not normally occur without negligence, the defendant had exclusive control, and the plaintiff did not contribute. It is part of evidence law, not criminal law, refutation, or vicarious liability.

The Latin maxim 'necessitatis non-habet legem' translates to 'necessity knows no law' in English. This legal principle means that in cases of extreme necessity or emergency, certain legal rules may be set aside. It is often invoked as a defense in criminal law and tort law where actions taken in an emergency situation would otherwise be unlawful. The doctrine of necessity recognizes that urgent circumstances may justify actions that would normally be illegal.

'Respondeat superior' is a Latin legal doctrine meaning 'let the master answer'. It holds employers (masters) vicariously liable for wrongful acts of employees (servants) committed in the course of employment. The doctrine does NOT mean the servant is personally immune - both can be liable.

Section 34 IPC serves dual purposes - it's both a rule of evidence (how joint acts are proved) and creates substantive joint liability principles. Courts have consistently held that Section 34 is not merely evidentiary but establishes the substantive principle that when several persons commit a criminal act, each is liable as if they did it alone.

The Latin maxim 'ignorantia juris non excusat' (ignorance of law is no excuse) means that not knowing the law is not a valid defense. Every person is presumed to know the law. This principle ensures legal certainty and prevents people from avoiding liability by claiming ignorance. It distinguishes from ignorance of fact, which may sometimes be a defense.

Under the Trade Unions Act, a certificate of registration is CONCLUSIVE evidence that the registration requirements have been complied with. This means it cannot be challenged in court on procedural grounds - the registration is valid once the certificate is issued.

The maxim 'Injuria sine damno' means injury without damage - where a legal right is violated even without actual loss. It has two key meanings: (a) it is actionable per se (no need to prove damage), and (d) it is actionable upon violation of legal right. The correct pairing is 'ad' meaning both elements characterize this maxim - actionable per se and actionable on violation of legal right. These are complementary aspects, not contradictory ones.

Option A is correct. Under Section 107 IPC, abetment is complete when the act is abetted - it's not necessary that the offence abetted has actually been committed. Abetment is a distinct offence that can exist independently of the commission of the principal offence. Option B is wrong because abetment doesn't require completion. Option C incorrectly suggests a 'helping hand' must be proven, which isn't required under law.