Self-Defence

Whether reasonableness of force to be assessed by reference to criminal law test relating to self-defence or civil law test

Held, that the test to be applied in disciplinary proceedings in relation to the use of force by a police officer in self-defence is the civil law test.

Accused person to agitate plea of self-defence had to prove the same during trial in the light of prerequisites contemplated under S. 100, P.P.C.

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

That would depend upon reasonable apprehension of danger to the person under the particular circumstances of the case

Reasonableness of the apprehension was a question of fact which would depend upon the weapon used, the manner of using it, the nature of assault or other surrounding circumstances.

Receiving of an injury by the accused is not necessary before apprehending imminent danger to his life.

Accused's plea of right of private defence of property not sustained because they were not found in possession of land in dispute

Individual responsibilities for crime assigned as far as discernible from prosecution evidence and convictions upheld by High Court

Leave to appeal-Contentions raised that benefits accruing to petitioners on account of a sudden fight in which they had neither acted cruelly nor taken undue advantage, should have been afforded to them; and as some of accused were acquitted by trial Court, credibility of prosecution case having been shaken, case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt

Accused having trespassed over land in an attempt to reclaim possession, had provided cause for conflict which immediately ensued

Where such provocation or initiative had come from very person who claims a right of self-defence, it could not be allowed for simple reason that but for

Whether accused had acted in exercise of right of self-defence or whether killing of deceased by him was a deliberate act of murder, only question for consideration

Version of accused that when he came across deceased latter stabbed him in chest and that accused had killed him in self-defence not believed either by trial Court or by High Court

Trial Court observing that injury on person of accused which was simple in nature could be self-suffered and that conduct of accused in butchering deceased even after he had fallen on ground when there was absolutely no risk from deceased showed that he inflicted injuries on his person with intention of killing him and not in self-defence

Accused having a motive to injure deceased while accused himself miserably failing to prove motive that he had tried to attribute to deceased

Accused causing as many as nineteen injuries to deceased and most of them on vital parts of body when no less than five injuries were sufficient to cause death in

Plea of self-defence raised by accused, held, had not been satisfactorily established, question of any reaction on prosecution case would, therefore, not arise in circumstances.

Petitioner allegedly under grave apprehension of bodily injury from deceased armed with hatchet and art iron bar, firing as many as three successive shots-Very first shot on chest of deceased being grievous and fatal and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature-Petitioner, held, exceeded his right of self-defence-Sentence of life imprisonment under S. 304, Part I maintained.-[Private defence, right of].

S. 302 read with S. 300-Murder trial-Provocation-Self defense-Sentence-Accused inflicting two knife blows on deceased's abdomen, resulting in his death-Accused and deceased found not only to have been grappling with and filthily abusing each other for a good time but injuries also found to have been inflicted all of a sudden-Case, clearly one of acting under provocation-Nothing indicating that deceased or his brother was armed with any weapon or had put accused in fear of death or grievous hurt-Plea of self-defense not available to accused in circumstances Sentence of death, however, held, not warranted-Sentence reduced to one of transportation for life.

S. 302-Self-defence Accused themselves not taking plea specifically and on contrary asserting that they had been falsely involved-Self-defence, in circumstance, can only be allowed on basis of clear evidence available on record showing that it was reasonably possible for- accused to have acted in self-defence.

Defensive action justified only when positive overt act of damage or harm set in motion.

A slipping away-Police pursuing to catch A, who resists-Police resorting to violence to meet A's resistance-No right of self-defence available to police-Penal Code (XLY of 1860), Ss. 99 & 100.

Self-Defence Self-defence-Assault by M on A in right of defence of property against offence of mischief-M exceeding right of defence of property and causing death of A-Rescuers of having right of defence of person of A exceeding such right and causing death of M-Rescuers guilty under S. 304, Part 1, P.P.C.-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 101, 104. M. Ismail Bhatti, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Naziruddin, Attorney for Appellant:

Self-Defence Self-defence- Evidence not led to prove plea but accused's version receiving support, to extent of being reasonably possible, from prosecution evidence-Accused entitled to acquittal-Duty of Court to examine accused's statement in juxtaposition to proved facts of prosecution case-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 105.

Self-Defence Causing death in exercise of right of, or under grave and sudden provocation-Accused should be taken to have intended to cause death-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 100 and 304, Part I.