INDIAN PENAL CODE
100: When The Right Of
Private Defence Of The Body Extends To Causing Death::--The right of private defence of the body extends, under the
restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing
of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions
the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated,
namely–
First–Such an
assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be
the consequence of such assault;
Secondly–Such an
assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will
otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
Thirdly–An assault
with the intention of committing rape;
Fourthly–An assault
with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;
Fifthly–An assault
with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;
Sixthly–An assault
with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which
may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse
to the public authorities for his release.
COMMENTS
Apprehension must be
reasonable and the violence inflicted must not be greater than is reasonably
necessary for the purpose of self defence. If the accused has not taken the
plea of private defence but necessary basis for the plea is laid down in
cross-examination of prosecution witness, the court can consider the
plea–Jaspal Singh & Tirath Singh v. State 1986(10) DRJ 332: 1986(2) Crimes
338.
Appreciation of death or grievious hurt cases
If the accused
had already dealt several blows on the deceased, he could not have been in a
position to shoot at the accused persons. Having regard to some of the
admissions made by the witnesses, it appears that the accused took forcible
possession of the land some days ago. Therefore, even assuming that they came
into possession after committing trespassing, if the deceased and others had
gone to the land they cannot be held to be aggressors as pleaded by the
defence; Khuddu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 1538 (1540).
Ingredients
(i) Self
inflicted injuries not explained by prosecution except the reliance on medical
evidence acquittal of accused not justified; Chuhar Singh v. State of Punjab,
AIR 1999 SC 1052: 1991 SCC (Cr) 1066: 1998 (4) JT 449.
(ii) The
inmates clearly had a right of private defence against the intruders who tried
to extract money by force; Kishore Shambhudatta Mishra v. State of
Maharashtra, (1989) Cr LJ 1149: AIR 1989 SC 1173.
Right of private defence to cause death
(i) Under what
circumstances accused gave knife blow to the deceased could not be explained by
accused, acquittal on ground of self defence not justified; State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Laeeg, AIR 1999 SC 1942: 1999 (5) SCC 588.
(ii) While
being chased by deceased appellant attacked on deceased caused fire incised
wound, held exceeded the right of private defence, conviction under section 304
Part I proper; Suresh Singh v. State, AIR 1999 SC 1773: 1999 (2) Crimes 42.
(iii) Attack
by single blow on the neck of deceased proved fatal. Held accused exceeded
right of private defence; Amar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1997 SCC (Cr)
630.
No comments:
Post a Comment