: .~~...." .

CR),MINAL"L' AW· .. ·"". . .:. '..

. .' .

; . !~"" . :','.......••. ..., .•.., .: .,,'!.-<:', "~o,,,,_~~ "'•••••:. ,~. '''""~~

JOU'RN,A.L.

o October .zoro ..~ Vol: 11().~:~.~}~~()

A CRIMINAL LAW JOURNALl:jTARTED IN 1904

. '." . . ,:. " ..., "'::'":""-':.);::;':i;~~~:

.. -'. - . - (~I-M-P-O-R-TA-N-T-D-EC-I-"-S-IO'--N-S--"}' . : . :: .. , .. : ~.' 'J

[!] Postponement of issue of process - Examination of all the ::\.dd •••••• •• • ••.••••••••••••••••••••••• "'d.d ••••••••• •••••• •••• •••••••••••••• ••••• • ..' ,~

witnesses cited in the complaint is not a condition precedent for::taking cognizance and issue of process against the persons named : ~as accused in the complaint . 38~7 (SC) : ~

. . :. ~.

.' ." ~[!] Rustic witness - Discrepancies noticed in the evidence of a ..C

rustic witness who is subjected to grueling cross-examination : ~should not be blown out of proportion 3889 (SC)"

~ Right to Information - Information furnished by Public In-: .~formation Officer in response to "request" made to him can be : ~t~~atedas an "order". Replies (orders) to applications filed by : tcomplainant under Right to Information Act are immune to chal- : ~lenge either before Civil.Court; or before Criminal Court except: ;by way of appealunder S. 19 of the Act 4117 (Ker ): ~

;,'.:. - - " " ' .

~.' "

Chief Editor.V. fl. Manohar, Advocate

I II

','1.'

, .' ~>: ..

!i

,.r

.~

1

J

I!

I'.

IIII

I

2010 .' .Ari~Jy)iis})f);,(:)~~I1ng'in$igh.tpffr..ii'?ie,dMeh~e Cases '; Journa1295.

~~i\~%ll;!t~1r4i~i~f~1~;rli~~;i~~~i.i~;1~~:~~~~~···.diction.. " ..•...'. " "':""" able "tp;dlplomaucJaw;byestablish- ,

c- c

cu.~~,putt\'(IJ1,9tn.erwl~e..be ,th~~9!1$~qy~nc~. cowa:d~~y,2,:~p.~Lde~ra,de~~t~~,h,urn~spm L '.

'ra'h'W--' . "-lW""Il"In' self'", In many legalsystelJ1s, Ing<iU a~ .s." . \."~d•.-.:..,l.'~Ii')~h,~ .•~.l.J.~I·'l~~?·!I.·.'··~.·":;Yb';·lc.•:.~R~~~.;.,.~..;.~.,\lr.t.9., ferfdeii'.eit.her>C6fistder. g'li. 'li.'~.·."'iJ i:.f5.1..•.·~b.'le;·'Ot (ap.ll. J .at ",WI .·ueuna eto.naee're- . ..' ',.' ,( '

co~;:~~n·~{~l:;.a~~~~~~S{~t:::i·~rti1e~ . 2'l~~;~~~!ki~a~~z:~~~~~~t,(l:67).qo~rtt~:~t~~)X~.;s.:~ll:b~~fJ}()ana.ssaqJr~?l~h 3. Hari Singh. Gour, "Penal La:wi;>fTrfdia"sa4Sega, rea~.()nabl(!q.pprehenslonof'death (1998)];>.,99 . . ...,

.·'.'~'l.''''.,::",,;· '.:.: .. " ..:. .r..J -v ~.. ~.,: :;1':" ": .":~.' ;.': -.,.~}.,:.', I'." : .. '. > .'.. • '.' .. ", ".,". ;"'.' ••.••

l,:$:e,i:;,lQO~q;:)~n~iri~r~testhe sixcases, 4, Bentham, "Principles of Penal Laws" .

· 296 Journal Analysis of SC Ruling in Right of Private defence Cases Cri LJ

excusable homicide. The duty of retreating,as one finds in English law, has no applica-tion in India, in cases where there is a realneed for defending one self against deadlyassaults. Rights of self defence come into op-eration the moment there is a 'reasonableapprehension' of death or grievous hurt willotherwise be the consequence of such assault.

4. The Supreme Court reviewed the lawrelating to the right of self defence extend-ing to cause death and clearly enunciated asfollows :-

(i) It is not a right to take revenge. It is aright to defend and not to retaliate.

(ii) It can be exercised only where theimmediate aid from the State machinery isnot available".

(iii) It is available not only to protect one-self but also some innocent third party.

(iv) It should not be an act of self-cre-ation6 but an act of necessity to avert an im-pending danger and should not exceed its le-gitimate purpose7• One may cause such in-jury as may be necessary to ward off the ap-prehended danger or threat".

(v) Where the person is exercising theright of self-defence, it is not possible toweigh the force with which the right is exer-cised nor to weigb in golden scale. He neednot prove the existence of a right of privatedefence beyond reasonable doubt".

(vi) The right of private defence is recog-nized within certain reasonable limits 10.

5. State of Orissa v. Rabindranath Dalai &another, (1973) Cri LJ 1686 (Ori)

6. Laxrnan Sahu v, State of Orissa AIR 1988SC P. 83 : 1988 Cri LJ 188.

7. Puran Singh v. State of Punjab, 1975 CriLJ 1479: AIR 1975 SC 1674

8. Kashrniri La! v. State of Punjab, 1996 CriLJ 4452 : AIR 1997 SC 393

9. James Martin v. State of Kerala (2004) 2SCC 203

10. Gotipulla Venkata Subramanyam v. State

(vii) Even if the accused does not pleadself-defence, it is open to the Court to con-sider such a plea, if the same arises from thematerial on record II.

(viii) The fight of self-defence com-mences as soon as reasonable apprehensionarises, and is co-terminus with rhe durationof such apprehension 11.

(ix) There is nothing which lays down inabsolute terms that in all situations injurieson the person of the accused have to be ex-plained!'.

(x) Once the reasonable apprehension dis-appears, there is no occasion to exercise theright of self defence".

(xi) The plea of reasonable apprehensionis essentially a question of fact".

(xii) It is unrealistic to expect a personunder assault to modulate his defence, stepby step, with any arithmetical exactitude.".

It is hoped that the ruling of the SupremeCourt analyzing the various points of law,relating to the right of private defence willserve as very useful guideline for everyone,who is concerned with the right of privatedefence, extending up to the causing of deathof the assailant.

of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 197JSC 1079 :1970 Cri LJ 1004

11. Munshi Ram & others v. Delhi Adminis-tration, i968 Cri LJ 806 : AIR 1968 SC702

12. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rarnesh, AIR2005 SC 1186: 2005 Cri LJ 6)2.

13. Triloki Nath & others v. Stare of UttarPradesh, AIR 2006 SC 32l.

14. Jai Dev v, State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC612: 1963 (1) Cri LJ 495.

15. Buta Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1991SC 1316: 1991 Cri LJ 1464.

16. Vidya Singh v. State of Madhya PradeshAIR 1971 SC 1857 : 1971 Cri LJ 1296.