R was standing outside his house. Suddenly Victor came and pointed a loaded gun at him. Discuss the kind of wrong committed by Victor. What would be your answer, if Victor had struck him from behind ?

Assault is any act of one person which directly causes the other person immediately to apprehend a contact with his person. Thus, when one person by his act creates an apprehension in the mind of the other person that he is going to commit battery against him, the tort of assault is committed. The law of assault is substantially the same as that of battery except that apprehension of contact, not the contact itself has to be established. Usually when there is a battery, there will also be assault. To point a loaded gun at the plaintiff, or to shake first under his nose, or to curse him in a threatening manner, or to aim a blow at him which is intercepted, or to surround him with a display of force is to assault him clearly. If the defendant by his act intends to commit a battery and the plaintiff apprehends it, is an assault. Thus, in the first situation, Victor is pointing his loaded gun at R and the apprehension by R that Victor intends to commit a battery is an assault. Hence it can be said that Victor has committed assault in the first case. The second situation attract the tort/offence of battery. Battery means any direct application of force to the person of another individual without his consent or lawful justification is a wrong of battery. To constitute tort/ offence of battery, therefore, two things are necessary: use of force, however, trivial it may be without the plaintiff's consent, and without any lawful justification. Even though the force used is very trivial and does not cause any harm, the wrong is committed. Thus, even to touch a person in anger or without any lawful justification is battery.