In this topic we will understand the difference between a criminal wrong and a civil wrong. We will study the basics of each and try to clear out the difference with a few examples as well.
Criminal wrongs
Criminal wrongs are wrongs against the state, and not just against an individual. Criminal wrongs are much more serious than civil wrongs because they are against the whole society, even if only one individual gets hurt.
Civil wrongs
A wrong against a particular individual, civil wrongs are redressable i.e. the injured party may claim damages from the party who inflicted the wrongs on him. Civil wrongs can also be defined as the wrongs that are not recognised by the state as being criminal wrongs
Differences between criminal and civil wrong
The wrongs which are against the benefit of the public, and the state are labelled as criminal wrongs, whereas wrongs that affect the interests of a particular individual are called civil wrongs. The criminal wrongs include acts such as murder, robbery, assault, theft etc. while the less serious wrongs like trespassing, nuisance, environmental pollution, copyright infringement etc. are recognised as civil wrongs
In the case of criminal wrongs, the state takes the action against the offender by hiring a public prosecutor to prosecute the case in the court; this is called the system of public prosecutions. However, this is not the case of civil wrongs, where one party has cause injury to the other or their property, and the injured sues the other and hire lawyers to represent them in the court. Here, the state does not get involved. In a criminal case, if a person has a committed a criminal wrong, it is up to the state to find the accused, prepare a First Information Report, investigate the crime and hire a public prosecutor to represent the state in front of the court in a public prosecution which is different from the procedures of a civil wrong where if a party has acted in such a way that has caused injuries to the other party, the plaintiff would sue them in the court and will have to hire their own lawyer to represent their case in the court.
In the case of civil wrong, the injured party (the plaintiff) sues the party who inflicted the injuries (the defendant) to them. Then the injured party would seek compensation for the injuries and the effects of the injuries inflicted on them by the other party. If the defendant is proved to be liable for the injuries, the court can award damages to the plaintiff. Whereas, if a person commits a criminal wrong, it is up to the state (police) to bring the accused to the court and prosecute him. Also in a criminal wrong, the court focuses on punishing the criminal and not on compensating the victim. Ex. When a person commits the civil wrong of defamation and injures the reputation of another person, the plaintiff can sue him in the court and if proven to be liable for the injuries, the court can order the defendant to compensate for the injuries in the form of damages. Whereas if an individual commits the crime of culpable homicide, and causes the death of another person, it is up to the state authorities to find him and bring him to the court, prosecute him, and if proven to be guilty, punish him. Here the court focuses on punishing the accused unlike in the case of a civil wrong where the focus of the court is to compensate for the plaintiff’s injuries.
The criminal law is defined in the IPC (Indian Penal Code, 1860), and a person who has committed a civil wrong is punished in accordance with the IPC, while aside from a few common laws, there are no laws for civil wrongs, and it is solely up to the judges to decide if the defendant is liable or not, and also the compensation for the same. Ex. If a person commits the crime mischief upon another individual or a group he will be punished according to sections 425-440 (which covers mischief) of the IPC while if a person commits the tort of defamation, it is up to the courts whether to apply an English tort principle if it is needed, or apply it with modifications or not use it at all.
Sometimes criminal law is also known as public laws because they affect the whole society. Ex. If a person commits a murder, then he is a threat to the whole society and it is up to the state to protect the society. But if a person has injured the reputation of another individual, it does not concern the whole society. So civil laws are also known as private laws.
In a criminal wrong, the presence of intention of causing the injury/committing the act plays an important role in the judgement but in a civil wrong, the presence or absence of the intention cause the injury does not play any role deciding the liability of the injuries. If a person watches a deer run behind a bush and shoots at it and hurts another person who was behind it instead, he will not be guilty. While if a person makes loud noise which troubles his neighbours, it wouldn’t matter whether it was his intention to do so or not.
There are however, certain wrongs that fulfill the criterion for both civil and criminal wrong. In these situations the distinction between the two wrongs can be slightly blurred. They can be called both as a civil wrong as well as a criminal wrong. So there can be criminal as well as legal action for a single wrong. Some examples to these are assault, defamation, negligence, nuisance, reckless driving etc.
If a person punch another person and there’s no physical injury, it will be considered as a civil wrong, though if a person beats another person and cause him grave injuries, it will be called a criminal wrong.
If by an individual’s negligence, another individual gets minor injuries it will be called a civil wrong. While if one’s negligence causes grave injuries to another individual, he has committed a criminal wrong.
Tags: civil wrongs, copyright infringement, criminal case, environmental pollution, information report, injured party, public prosecution, public prosecutions, public prosecutor, robbery