In terms of the rights to private defense, this is a significant case. The right to private defense can be used to defend oneself from detected unlawful aggression, not to hold the aggressor accountable for his own actions. It is not a punitive right, but a preventive one.
deo narain vs state of up Case Facts
- The ownership of various land parcels in the Uttar Pradeshi village of Baruara, District Ghazipur, was a subject of some debate.
- Regarding ownership and title to the aforementioned land, the opposing parties filed a number of lawsuits.
- The complainant and appellate parties got into a fight.
- During the altercation, the deceased sustained a fatal spear wound from the appellant.
- One lacerated wound on the right side of the cranium and one incised wound with a puncture hole on the left shoulder were sustained by the dead. His final wound was the cause of his demise.
- After considering the facts and coming to the conclusion that the accused had a right to a private defense and was justified in using it, the trial court cleared the accused of all charges.
- The trial court stated that the complainant’s party had really visited the disputed plots in order to stop the accused individuals from cultivating and ploughing the aforementioned land.
- The High Court of Allahabad heard an appeal from the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the acquittal of the accused parties. The HC found the appellant guilty of an offence under section 304 of the india penal code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced him to five years of severe imprisonment.
deo narain vs state of up Issues
- Did the petitioner go beyond their private defense rights?
- Is the petitioner’s use of the spear as a private right of defense appropriate in light of the lathi injury?
deo narain vs state of up Judgment
- According to the SC, the HC erred in law when it found the appellant guilty, claiming that he had overreached his right to private defense.
- section 102 of the indian penal code states that the right to private defense of the body begins when there is a reasonable fear of harm to the body resulting from an attempt or threat to commit an offence, even if the offence has not yet been committed. This right lasts for the duration that there is a reasonable fear of harm to the body.
- However, rather than posing a remote or distant threat, the threat must plausibly result in current and urgent danger.
- This right is based on the general idea that it is acceptable to use self-defence to repel force when it is being used to commit a crime.
- Saying that the appellant may only use his right to use force after being the victim of a violent, unprovoked attack that left him seriously injured betrays a total misreading of the legislation contained in the aforementioned section.
- The appellant was entitled to the right of private defense and the ability to use sufficient force against the wrongdoer in the exercise of that right as soon as he had a reasonable fear that someone on the Complainant’s side was actually threatening to attack him in order to seize the disputed land or prevent them from cultivating it.
- The complainant’s side had intentionally arrived to hinder or prevent the accused parties from possessing their property, and this unlawful forceful obstruction and prevention was being used.
- The appellant had a reasonable fear that his companions and his own body were in immediate danger.
- Therefore, he had every right to use force to protect himself and his friends from the perceived threat, which was clearly approaching.
- It is not possible to establish as a universal norm that using a lathi, as opposed to a spear, will always only cause minor injuries. A lot relies on the type of lathi, the body part being struck, and the force applied to deliver the impact. It is true that a spear can be used in a way that could result in a relatively little injury.
- It cannot be established as a solid legal theory that the victim is not entitled to use his spear in self-defence if a lathi blow is directed towards a vulnerable area, such as the head.
- It might be challenging to expect people confronting serious violence to coolly assess how severe a blow would have to be in order to legally stop the unlawful aggression during such tumultuous or mentally unstable circumstances.
- Therefore, the accused’s right to private defense cannot be denied if he used a spear to strike the deceased’s chest with substantial force, even though he had only been struck in the head with a lathi blow.
The Supreme Court clarified what the right to private defense entails in this instance. The rules established in this case are precedent-setting and very pertinent to a claim of the right to private defense. It explains the actions in a reasonable manner.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
