Case – James Martin v. State of Kerala 2004
Fact
There was Bharat Bandh call given by some political parties. James and his father Xavier had their residence, besides a bread factory and a flour mill in the same compound in suburb of Kochi. It was, however, said that their success in business was a matter of envy for Thomas Francis, their neighbor, particularly who filed complaints to the local authorities against the conduct of the mill and the factory.
The incident involved in this case took place when five young men, the two deceased in this case, namely, Mohan and Basheer (deceased), and PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, who were activists of the bandh, got into the flour mill of the Xavier. They unlawfully entered into residence and pressurized for closing the operation of flour mill. Bandh activists who got into the place by scaling over the locked gate and that their entry was unlawful too, besides intimidating and assaulting worker (PW -15) and making them flee without shutting down the machines. James, on the instigation of his father Xavier, fired at the bandh activists. Two activists died.
Issue
Whether James Martin killed two persons in the exercise of right of private defence?
Contentions & Judgement:
- The threat to life and property of the accused was not only imminent but did not cease, and it continued unabated.
- Self-preservation is the prime instinct of every human being. The right of private defence is a recognized right in every criminal law.
- Section 99, IPC denotes ‘Lakshman Rekha’. Here ‘Lakshman Rekha’ means boundary beyond which you cannot go. It means the right of private defence is not an absolute right. It is subject to restrictions mentioned under section 99, IPC.
- In order to find whether the right of private defence is available or not, (i) the injuries received by the accused, (ii) the imminence of threat to his safety, (iii) the injuries caused by the accused and (iv) the circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are all relevant factors to be considered.
- It should not be allowed to be pleaded or availed as a pretext for a vindictive, aggressive or retributive purpose of offence. It is a right of defence, not of retribution, expected to repel unlawful aggression and not as a retaliatory measure.
- The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond a reasonable doubt. It is enough for him to show as in a civil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea.
- It is a well-settled principle that even if the accused does not plead self-defense, it is open to the court to consider such a plea, if the same arises from the material on record.
- We part with the case it needs to be noted that in the name of Hartal or Bandh or strike no person has any right to cause inconvenience to any other person or to cause in any manner a threat or apprehension of risk to life, liberty, property of any citizen or destruction of life and property, and the least any government or public property.
- There was a reasonable apprehension of causing death. In the circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that the acts done by the accused were within the reasonable limits of exercise of his right of private defence and he was entitled to the protections afforded in law under Section 96. Supreme Court acquitted the accused.
