Question

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: Duty to protect its citizens and right to punish the offender's vests with the 'State' at all times. However, rights to defend one's body or property in certain circumstances can be restored to by an individual where 'State' protection is not readily available. That is why it is provided in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 that nothing is an offence, which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every exercise has a right to defend his property against any act of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass where there is no time to have recourse to the protection of the public authority. This right to private defence of property extends to causing of death of the wrong-doer, if the person exercising the right apprehends that death or grievous hurt at the at the hands of the aggressor/ wrong-doer is inevitable while protecting his property against any such offence or attempt to commit such offence or attempt to commit such offence.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A' cattle was being regularly stolen and 'A' was unable to apprehend the thief. One night, 'A' finally manages to catch 'B' untying his cow from the cowshed under the cover of darkness. 'A' slowly walked up to 'B' and slashed his neck with a sickle leading to the death of 'B'. Is 'A' guilty of the offence of culpable homicide?

• A. No, 'A' was only exercising his right of private defence of property.
• B. No, 'B' s' continued stealing of his cattle would have rendered his business inoperable.
• C. Yes, 'A' had not reasonable apprehension that 'A' could suffer death or any grievous hurt if he did not kill 'B'.
• D. Yes, 'A' should have first challenged 'B' to surrender before taking any steps to cause 'B's' death.

Answer 1

Answer: (C)

Yes, 'A' had not reasonable apprehension that 'A' could suffer death or any grievous hurt if he did not kill 'B'.

A has committed the offence of culpable Homicide since he is allowed to exercise his right of private defence where the state protection is not readily available.

Here, even though A's cattle were being regularly stolen he did not use any protection from the State. Assuming that he did, No one is allowed to use force more than what is required to avoid the danger in the exercise of private defence. And that death can be caused while exercising the right of private defence only when the person exercising the right of private defence is apprehended that death or grievous hurt at the hands of the Aggressor.

Here, A slowly walked up to 'B' and slashed his neck with a sickle leading to the death of 'B'. Hence, there was no reasonable apprehension of death to A. Thus A is guilty of culpable Homicide.