On 1st April, P and Q friends X, decided to pull a prank on her. They wore black masks to cover their faces and proceeded in an un numbered car, towards the road that X took her regular morning walk. As X was taking her morning walk, they brought the car of a halt next to her and proceeded to forcefully get her in it. A bystander, Y, watching this opened fire on P and Q with his licensed gun and caused grievous injuries to them.

Y is guilty of causing grievous hurt as he had no right to intermeddle in the private affairs of the friends and he was neither a public authority nor a police official

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Y is not guilty of any offence because he had a right to protect the body of any other person, besides his own

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Y is not guilty of any offence because he had a reasonable apprehension that X was being assaulted with an intention of abduction

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Both b and c

Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is A Both b and c
Y is not guilty of any offence because he has exercised his right of Private defence.
As per section 96-106 of IPC every person has the right to protect himself, his property, any other person or other person's property. This right of private defence must be exercised when there is immediate danger or reasonable apprehension of immediate danger. The force used should not be more than the what is required.
Y is not guilty because he has used his right of private defence and because he had a reasonable apprehension that any prudent man would have had if it were in his place, that X was being assaulted with an intention of abduction.

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

Q. Given below are a legal principle and a factual situation. Apply the given legal principle to the factual situation and select the most appropriate answer to the question given below:

Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. This right also extends to lawfully causing the death of the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, be ;
(i) an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death or grievous hurt (very serious hurt).
(ii) an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of rape.
(iii) an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of kidnapping.
The right is available for protecting one's own body as well as the body of any other, provided the assault is not self-invited.

Decide whether the right of private defense is available in the following situation.

Factual Situation: A was holding the birthday party of his daughter. Some of his friends decided to present her with a car. To create an element of surprise, they decided to kidnap her for a few minutes while the party was in full swing and then get her back in the new car. They put the plan into action. While they were kidnapping, A got very alarmed and asked the guards to open fire. The guards killed all the five friends. A is _________________.

Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever enters into or upon the property in the possession of another, with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate or annoy any person in possession of the property and remains there with intent thereby to intimidate or annoy another person or with intent to commit an offence is guilty of criminal trespass.
FACT: The accused entered at night into a house to carry on intimate relations with an unmarried major girl on her invitation and information that her family members are absent. However, he was caught by her uncle before he could get away. Is the accused guilty of criminal trespass?

Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: No one can be punished for the same offence twice.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Aditya is accused of harassing his colleague Nimisha. She complains to her superior and a departmental inquiry is initiated against Aditya. Aditya tries to intimidate Nimisha and continues harassing her following which she complains to the police. The departmental inquiry finds him guilty and terminates his services. Later, he is found guilty by a court and is jailed for 2 years. He claims that he has been punished twice.
DECIDE.

The old lady was glad to be back at the block of flats where she lived. Her shopping had tired her and her basket had grown heavier with every step on the way home. In the lift, her thoughts were on lunch and a good rest but when she got out at her own floor, both were forgotten in her sudden discovery that her front door was open. She was thinking that she must reprimand her maid the next morning for such a monstrous piece of negligence, when she remembered that she had gone shopping after her maid had left and she had turned both the keys in their locks. She walked slowly into the hall and at once noticed that all the room doors were opened, yet following her regular practice she had shut them before going out. Looking into the drawing room, she saw a scene of confusion over by her writing desk.

It was as clear as daylight then that burglars had forced an entry in her absence. Her first impulse was to go round all the rooms looking for the thieves, but then she decided that at her age it might be more prudent to have someone with her, so she went to fetch the porter from the basement. By this time her legs were beginning to tremble, so she sat down and accepted a cup of very strong tea, while she telephoned the police. Then her composure regained, she was ready to set-off with the porter’s assistance to search for any intruders who might be still lurking in her flat.

Q. She decided to take someone along with her to look around the rooms because

Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has published any matter which interferes with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding pending at the time of the publication, if at that time he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending.
FACTUAL SITUATION: X delivered a lecture at the local Rotary Club in favour of an accused who is prosecuted for assaulting a police officer. He said that the accused is a victim of prevailing corruption in the judiciary and he knows that the accused is going to be punished by the court for being honest. Is X guilty of contempt of court?
DECISION will be _____.

Join BYJU'S Learning Program