Right of self-defence

Only consideration for self-defence is that a person threatened with danger of injury should not exceed the limits fixed by law

This depends upon reasonable apprehension of danger to the person under particular circumstances of the case

Reasonableness of apprehension is a question of fact which depends upon weapon used, the manner of using it, the nature of assault or other surrounding circumstances

There were three fire shots on the person of deceased who was not holding any weapon

Accused exceeded his right of self-defence, therefore, provision of section 302(c), P.P.C., was not attracted

Supreme Court considering the mitigating circumstances, reduced the sentence of death to imprisonment for life and set aside conviction and sentence awarded under section 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Appeal was allowed.

Presence of witnesses at the spot was not found free from doubt, therefore, admission of accused could not, be bifurcated to extend support to a crumbling charge and in case statement of accused was accepted in totality, which was required in law to be so accepted then his case was covered by the exception enumerated in S. 100, P.P.C.

­High Court extended benefit of doubt to accused, set aside conviction and sentence awarded to him by Trial Court and acquitted him of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

If someone from the Law Enforcing Agency asked the person required in any case to come out of the house, then the right of self-defence, did not accrue to the inmates of the house, and they could not cause qatl-e-amd of such person

Neither the right of privacy or protection of the same was infringed, nor the right of self-defence was available, in circumstances.

Right of self-defence was to be used as a shield to ward off on warranted attack to person or property, but it could not be used as vehicle for provoking an attack

Right of self-defence was to be exercised as a preventive measure and not for launching an attack for retaliatory purpose

Court would have to examine such question with reference to the facts of each case and keeping in view the state of mind of the person placed in the position of the person attacked who exercised the right of private defence

Art.9 of the Constitution

Encounter would not entitle a Police party to kill indiscriminately the persons who were allegedly involved in the encounter as the basic requirement provided in S.99, P.P.C. and in view of the importance and magnitude of Art.9 of the Constitution.