Right of private defence

2022 YLR 1901 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 34Qatl-i-amd, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceRight of private defenceScopeAccused was charged for committing murder of the deceased by firingAdmittedly, the occurrence took place during nocturnal hoursAccused was present in her house along with her minor kids whereas her husband was away from the house

High Court observed that very act of surreptitious entry by a stranger armed with pistol at night time into the room of a young lady, who was all alone in her room, and his murder by her in exercise of her right of private defence was not only believable but the same was also inferable from the attending circumstances of the case because she had no other option at that critical situation but to fire at the intruder

Young lady in the company of her kids only could not expect that a trespasser armed with pistol had entered her room during nocturnal hours with a good intention, therefore, her act of firing at the deceased in the said situation could not be termed in excess than what was required at the relevant time

Accused being a female and alone in her room had no choice at the relevant time to act in a weighed and pondered manner for repulsing the deceased for protection of her life, honour and safety of her minor kids

Circumstances established that the prosecution could not discharge its burden of proving the case against the accused, hence, accused was entitled to get the benefit of circumstances of the case which led a prudent mind to the conclusion that she had acted in her defence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2016 PCrLJ 1588 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.96, 97, 98, 99 & 100Right of private defenceCross versionScope

Principle of cross version primarily stems out of right of private defence as embodied in Ss. 96 & 97, P.P.C., but said provisions are subject to restrictions contained in S. 99, P.P.C.

No right of private defence exists against acts, which do not reasonably cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt

Section 100, P.P.C. further elaborates the circumstances in which right of private defence may extend to causing of death or any other harm to the assailant which is subject to the restrictions stipulated in S. 99, P.P.C.

Phrase 'voluntary causing of death of the assailant' contained in S. 100, P.P.C. points to a person who launches an assault and the victim of assault who acts in his self-defence.

2015 GBLR 1 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 100Right of private defence

Right of private defence, could be extended where reasonable apprehensions of danger had arisen from an attempt or threat to life

Private defence was a right of protection and not of aggression.

2014 YLR 1060 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 100Qatl-e-amdRight of private defenceAppreciation of evidence

Story of prosecution mentioned in F.I.R., was highly improbable and it did not appeal to common sense that when an altercation had taken place between the deceased and co-accused, few days prior to the occurrence, then why the deceased accompanied accused at night time on summoning of said co-accused

Prosecution eye-witnesses, could not explain as to how deceased entered into the room of the house of accused at the odd hours of night

Case of prosecution was that accused inflicted a hatchet blow near the right eye of deceased, but no hatchet was recovered from accused, or from the possession of any co-accused during the investigation

Conflict existed between the medical evidence and the prosecution case as set forth in the F.I.R.

Prosecution witnesses, while making their statements before the Trial Court, did not attribute any specific injury to accused; and they had simply stated that accused had caused hatchet blow on the deceased

Allegedly, blood-stained 'Kassi' and 'bat' were recovered from accused after 29 days of the occurrence, and same were deposited in the office of Chemical Examiner, after more than one month from the occurrence

Case of prosecution was not that accused had used three different weapons, 'Kassi', 'bat' and 'gun', but there were positive reports of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chemical Examiner and that of Serologist, in respect of said alleged weapons of offence which had spoken volumes against the truthfulness of prosecution case

Said positive reports, were of no avail to the prosecution

Prosecution could not prove any motive against accused

Case against accused was replete with number of doubts

Accused while exercising his right of self-defence, fired with his gun which hit the deceased who was present near the bed of his niece

Case of accused, in circumstances, fell within the four corners of general exceptions as provided under S.100, P.P.C.

Prosecution having failed to prove the case against accused, conviction and sentence of accused passed by the Trial Court was set aside and , he was acquitted of the charge and was released, in circumstances.

2014 PCrLJ 669 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 100Right of private defenceScopeAssault with the intention of committing rape

Right of private defence would extend to the voluntary causing the death of the assailant.

2013 PCrLJ 1650 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 100Right of private defenceExtent

Right of private defence of body would extend to the voluntary causing the death of the assailant, if assailant would launch an assault which could reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt would be the consequence of such assault.