Skip to main content

Right of self or private defence extends to protection of property

Cause Title : Nagesh vs State Of Karnataka, Criminal Revision Petition No.580/2013, Karnataka High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 29th Day Of October, 2022

Corum : S. Rachaiah, J.

Citied: 

Background

The appellants were accused before the trial court as well as the appellate court. Both courts have found them guilty of having accused severe injury to several people who were ploughing on a disputed field using the ploughing equipment being used by the injured. However, the trial court had also noted that by virtue of a court order, the father of the accused who is also the uncle/granduncle of the injured, was the owner of the field and therefore the accused were not trespassers.

Judgment

The High court observed that both courts have failed to appreciate the evidence and the relevant law. Once it is agreed that the accused are not trespassers, rather the injured were cultivating on land which did not belong to them, Section 96 and 97 of the Indian Penal Code comes into play.

The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have failed to consider the right of private defence. It is settled
principle of law that, even if the accused does not plead self defence, it is open to the Court to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record. 

Section 96 of IPC which provides that nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of right of private defence. The Section does not define the expression ‘right of private defence’. It merely indicates that
nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of such right. It is true that the burden is on the accused to establish the plea of self defence is not as onerous as the one which lies on the prosecution and that, while the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused need not establish the plea to the guilt and may discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probabilities either by laying basis for that plea in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or by adducing defence evidence.

Section 97 which deals with subject matter of right of private defence. The plea of right comprises the body or property of the person exercising the right; or of any other person; and the right may be exercised in the case of offence against the body, and in the case of offence of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass and attempts at such offences in relation to property. The said right of private defence lays down the limits. Sometimes even it can extend upto causing voluntary causing of death. However, the accused must show that there were circumstances giving raise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to him.

In this matter, the father of the accused persons, is the owner of the land where the alleged incident had taken place and it is also admitted that, the injured were ploughing the disputed land which belongs to accused persons. The accused persons had not gone to the disputed land with deadly weapons in their hand. They went to the spot unarmed and tried to protect the land. Therefore, as per the High Court, the accused have proved that, in order to protect the land they exercised right of self defence.



Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more