Question:  B aimed his revolver at A. In order to save himself, A gave a ‘pharsi’ blow on the hand of B with a result that the revolver fell down on the ground. Thereafter, A gave another ‘pharsi’ blow on the head of B causing the instantaneous death of B. Can A justifiably claim the right of private… Read More »

Question: B aimed his revolver at A. In order to save himself, A gave a ‘pharsi’ blow on the hand of B with a result that the revolver fell down on the ground. Thereafter, A gave another ‘pharsi’ blow on the head of B causing the instantaneous death of B. Can A justifiably claim the right of private defence is causing the death of B? [RJS 1974] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [B aimed his revolver at A. In order to save himself, A gave a ‘pharsi’ blow...

Question: B aimed his revolver at A. In order to save himself, A gave a ‘pharsi’ blow on the hand of B with a result that the revolver fell down on the ground. Thereafter, A gave another ‘pharsi’ blow on the head of B causing the instantaneous death of B. Can A justifiably claim the right of private defence is causing the death of B? [RJS 1974]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [B aimed his revolver at A. In order to save himself, A gave a ‘pharsi’ blow on the hand of B with a result that the revolver fell down on the ground. Thereafter, A gave another ‘pharsi’ blow on the head of B causing the instantaneous death of B. Can A justifiably claim the right of private defence is causing the death of B?]

Answer

Section 102, IPC prescribes the commencement and the duration of the right of private defence of the body which commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence, though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.

In Ghulam Rasool v. Emperor, AIR 1925 Lah 119, the deceased after assaulting the accused was about to hit him with a clod of earth; the accused gave him two violent blows with a hatchet, resulting in his death. The court held that the accused had apprehension of hurt but not of grievous hurt and therefore, the harm caused was more than necessary.

Further, in Hari Meghji v. State of Gujarat, 1983, the Supreme Court held that as the accused continued to assault the deceased after had fallen down and rendered harmless, the plea of private defence was not available to him.

In-state of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramtesh, (2005) 9 SCC 705, the court held that every person has a right to defend his own body and the body of another person against any offence affecting the human body. The right of self-defence commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension arises and it is co-terminus with the duration of such apprehension. Again, it is a defensive and not retributive right and to be exercised accordingly.

Therefore, in the present case, A cannot justifiably claim the right of private defence is causing the death of B because the revolver which was the essential threat to the life of A was already fallen on the ground and still A chose to hit B with ‘pharsi’ blow. Here, A in exercising the defence has actually exceeded in his right of private defence against person B.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
  2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
  3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
  4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
  5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
  6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
  7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
  8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
  9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
  10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions
Updated On 2021-07-07T06:36:04+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story