Given below are Legal Principles followed by a Factual Situation. Apply the principles followed by a factual Situation. Apply the principle to it and select the most appropriate answer for question among the four choices given.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Any act done in exercise of right of private defence shall not be an offence. The right to private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'X' saw an unknown man jumping the boundary wall and entering his house in the night. He hid himself in a corner carrying a sword and waiting for the person. The moment the person entered the house, he hit the person and cut his head. Whether 'X' committed offence of killing a man?
DECISION.
Given below are Legal Principles followed by a Factual Situation. Apply the principles followed by a factual Situation. Apply the principle to it and select the most appropriate answer for question among the four choices given.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Any act done in exercise of right of private defence shall not be an offence. The right to private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'X' saw an unknown man jumping the boundary wall and entering his house in the night. He hid himself in a corner carrying a sword and waiting for the person. The moment the person entered the house, he hit the person and cut his head. Whether 'X' committed offence of killing a man?
DECISION.
The correct option is A Yes, because he exceeded right of private defence.
Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that any act done in the exercise of private defence is not an offence. In other words, if a person uses necessary force on the wrong-doer to prevent any harm to his person or property, when the immediate help of State machinery is not available is not answerable in the Court of law. However, this right is not absolute and there exists a caveat in terms of Section 99 of Code. It states that the right to private defence does not extend beyond what is necessary to inflict for the purpose of self defence. Therefore, one cannot use force more than that is required to protect himself. For example, inflicting harm with ballam was held to be not in proportional to inflicting harm with lathi (Parichhat v State of MP). Similarly, inflicting sword injury to a person trying to break in, who can be stopped through other means.
Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that any act done in the exercise of private defence is not an offence. In other words, if a person uses necessary force on the wrong-doer to prevent any harm to his person or property, when the immediate help of State machinery is not available is not answerable in the Court of law. However, this right is not absolute and there exists a caveat in terms of Section 99 of Code. It states that the right to private defence does not extend beyond what is necessary to inflict for the purpose of self defence. Therefore, one cannot use force more than that is required to protect himself. For example, inflicting harm with ballam was held to be not in proportional to inflicting harm with lathi (Parichhat v State of MP). Similarly, inflicting sword injury to a person trying to break in, who can be stopped through other means.
