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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more