Case – Deo Narain v. State of U.P.,1973
Fact
There was some dispute with respect to the possession of certain plots of land in village Baruara, Police Station Dildarnagar, District Ghazipur. There were several legal proceedings between the rival parties with respect to both title and possession of the said plots. On September 17, 1965, there was a clash between the party of the accused (Deo Narain) and the party of the deceased (Chanderama).
In this clash lathis and spear were used from both sides. The blow of lathi was aimed at the head of Deo Narain. In consequence of this, Deo Narain, in the exercise of his right of private defence, inflicted a fatal spear injury on the chest of the deceased causing death of Chanderama.
Issue
Had Deo Narayan exceeded his right of private defence?
Contentions & Judgement:
- Right of Private Defence rests on the general principle that where a crime is committed by force, it is lawful to repel that force in self-defense.
- The threat must reasonably give rise to the present and imminent and not remote or distant danger. This right rests on the general principle that where a crime is endeavoured to be committed by force, it is lawful to repel that force in self-defence. Deo had used a spear in self-defence. Use of lathi at the head was imminent danger.
- In such moments of the excitement of disturbed mental equilibrium, it is somewhat difficult to expect parties facing grave aggression to coolly weigh, as if in golden scales, and calmly determine with a composed mind as to what precise kind and severity of blow would be legally sufficient for effectively meeting the unlawful aggression.
- The right of private defence is available for protection against apprehended unlawful aggression and not for punishing the aggressor for his offence. It is a preventative and not punitive right.
- According to section 102, the right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence, though the offence may not have been committed, and such right continues so long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.
- Section 99 says that the right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.
- Deo has exercised his right of private defence. He had not exceeded his right of private defence. He was acquitted.
