Section 100 IPC-Dhara 100-Dafa-When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death

Section 100 IPC-Dhara 100-Dafa-When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death:

The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:—

First.— Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Secondly.—Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehen­sion that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Thirdly.— An assault with the intention of committing rape;

Fourthly.—An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;

Fifthly.— An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abduct­ing;

Sixthly.— An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.

COMMENTS

Appreciation of death or grievious hurt cases

If the accused had already dealt several blows on the de­ceased, he could not have been in a position to shoot at the accused persons. Having regard to some of the admissions made by the witnesses, it appears that the accused took forcible possession of the land some days ago. Therefore, even assuming that they came into possession after committing trespassing, if the de­ceased and others had gone to the land they cannot be held to be aggressors as pleaded by the defence; Khuddu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 1538 (1540).

Ingredients

(i) Self inflicted injuries not explained by prosecution except the reliance on medical evidence acquittal of accused not justified; Chuhar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 1052: 1991 SCC (Cr) 1066: 1998 (4) JT 449.

(ii) The inmates clearly had a right of private defence against the intruders who tried to extract money by force; Kishore Shamb­hudatta Mishra v. State of Maharashtra, (1989) Cr LJ 1149: AIR 1989 SC 1173.

Right of private defence to cause death

(i) Under what circumstances accused gave knife blow to the deceased could not be explained by accused, acquittal on ground of self defence not justified; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Laeeg, AIR 1999 SC 1942: 1999 (5) SCC 588.

(ii) While being chased by deceased appellant attacked on deceased caused fire incised wound, held exceeded the right of private defence, conviction under section 304 Part I proper; Suresh Singh v. State, AIR 1999 SC 1773: 1999 (2) Crimes 42.

(iii) Attack by single blow on the neck of deceased proved fatal. Held accused exceeded right of private defence; Amar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1997 SCC (Cr) 630.