Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Moot (Respondents Cases)

    Uploaded by

    Rajvardhan Masram
    13 views2 pages
    This document discusses the legal principles around the right to private defense in India. It outlines several key points: 1) There is no right to private defense against an unarmed individual who is not committing an offense. The force used must be proportionate to the threat. 2) The burden is on the accused to prove circumstances justify private defense. 3) Private defense cannot be claimed for acts that are not offenses under the Indian Penal Code. 4) The force used in private defense must be proportionate and not greater than necessary to protect oneself or property. Serious injury cannot be inflicted on an unarmed aggressor. 5) The right to private defense allowing death applies only if

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Moot( respondents cases)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document discusses the legal principles around the right to private defense in India. It outlines several key points: 1) There is no right to private defense against an unarmed individual who is not committing an offense. The force used must be proportionate to the threat. 2) The burden is on the accused to prove circumstances justify private defense. 3) Private defense cannot be claimed for acts that are not offenses under the Indian Penal Code. 4) The force used in private defense must be proportionate and not greater than necessary to protect oneself or property. Serious injury cannot be inflicted on an unarmed aggressor. 5) The right to private defense allowing death applies only if

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    13 views2 pages

    Moot (Respondents Cases)

    Uploaded by

    Rajvardhan Masram
    This document discusses the legal principles around the right to private defense in India. It outlines several key points: 1) There is no right to private defense against an unarmed individual who is not committing an offense. The force used must be proportionate to the threat. 2) The burden is on the accused to prove circumstances justify private defense. 3) Private defense cannot be claimed for acts that are not offenses under the Indian Penal Code. 4) The force used in private defense must be proportionate and not greater than necessary to protect oneself or property. Serious injury cannot be inflicted on an unarmed aggressor. 5) The right to private defense allowing death applies only if

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    1: Gurbachan Singh v.

    State of Haryana, (1974) 3 SCC 667

    “ No right of private defence can exist against an unarmed and unoffending individual.”

    2: Section 105: Evidence act

    Burden of proof is prescribed that the burden is on the accused to prove the existence of
    circumstances bringing the case within any of the exceptions "and the Court shall presume
    the absence of such circumstances".

    3: Chandar Bhan vs. State AIR 1954 All 39

    There is no right of self-defence against an act which itself is not an offence under the Code.

    4: Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR (2010) SC 1212: 2010 CrLJ 1393

    In private defence, the force used by the accused ought not to be disproportionate or greater
    than necessary for protection of the person or property.
    Hon’ble court held that the right of private defence provided under Indian penal code is very
    narrow right and can be taken advantage of only when the circumstances fully justifies the
    exercise of such right.

    (If the deceased is unarmed and accused causes serious injuries to him, here the act of
    the accused will not be justified as he does not have right to private defence to cause
    serious injuries to an unarmed aggressor.)

    5: Arjun v State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 2181, (2012) 5 SCC 530

    Right of private defence extending to voluntary causing of death is available only if accused
    shows that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that
    either death or grievous hurts would be caused to him. Accused has to place necessary
    material on record either by himself adducing positive evidence or by eliciting necessary
    positive evidence or by eliciting necessary fact from prosecution witnesses-Degree of proof
    however is not beyond reasonable doubt but mere preponderance of probability.
    6: Munney Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

    Right of private defence is governed by s96-106 of the IPC, and is subject to two limitations
    likely in exercise of this right of private defence, namely, any kind of hurt can be caused but
    not death and that the use of force does not exceed the minimum required to save the person
    in whose defence the force is used.

    7: Mano dutt vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 79

    A person is not entitled to use the violence that is disproportionate to the injury which is to be
    averted or which is reasonably apprehended. The moment a defender exceeds it, he commits
    an offence and thereby cease to have the right of private defence.

    8: Section 99 IPC: There no is right of private defence against an act which does not
    reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt.

    Extent to which the right may be exercised- The right of private defence in no case extends
    to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.

    9: Arun Raj v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 457


    There is no fixed rule that whenever a single blow is inflicted S. 302 would not be attracted -
    However, delivering a single blow with a sharp weapon in a sudden fight would not point
    towards intention to cause death, and hence, accused can be convicted under S. 304.
    Nature of weapon used and vital part of the body where blow was struck, prove beyond
    reasonable doubt intention of appellant to cause death of deceased - Once these ingredients
    are proved, it is irrelevant whether there was a single blow struck or multiple blows.
    Weapon used by appellant was a kitchen knife with sharp edges — Held, was a dangerous
    weapon and appellant was aware that use of such weapon could cause death or serious bodily
    injury, that was likely to cause death Hence, intention of appellant to cause death of deceased
    proved.

    You might also like