Facts of the Case
- A was attacked by a group of persons who attempted to kill him.
- Facing imminent danger to his life, A used his licensed revolver to defend himself.
- A fired at the attackers solely to protect himself.
- During the act of self-defense, one of the attackers was hit and died.
- The question is whether A is criminally liable for the attacker’s death.
Issues in the Case
- Whether A was the victim of a grave and imminent threat of death or grievous injury?
- Whether A’s act of firing amounted to exercise of the right of private defence under the IPC?
- Whether causing the death of an assailant is justified under Section 100 IPC?
- Whether the force used by A was proportionate and necessary?
- Whether A exceeded the right of private defence or acted within legal limits?
Legal Principles Covered
A. Right of Private Defence (Sections 96–106 IPC)
Section 96 IPC – Act done in Private Defence
- Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
Section 97 IPC – Right of Private Defence of Body
- A person has the right to defend his body against any offence affecting human life.
Section 100 IPC – When Right of Private Defence Extends to Causing Death
A person may cause death of the assailant if the assault causes a reasonable apprehension of:
- Death, or
- Grievous hurt, or
- Rape, kidnapping, or certain other offences.
Application:
A faced an attempt to kill him (attempt to murder), giving him the legal right to cause death of the attacker.
B. Conditions Limiting the Right
- The danger must be immediate and real.
- The response must be necessary to avert the threat.
- No safe escape or lesser force must have been reasonably available to A.
Here, A was under direct attack; thus, firing was necessary and justified.
C. Use of Licensed Weapon
- Holding a licensed revolver reinforces that the weapon possession itself was lawful.
- Using it for self-defense is legally protected if circumstances justify it.
D. Case Law
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010 SC)
The Supreme Court held:
- Right of private defence must be liberally interpreted in favour of a person facing imminent danger.
- The law does not require the victim to run away.
- Causing death is justified if assault threatens life.
Deo Narain v. State of UP
- If an accused acts to defend himself from imminent danger, he is exempt from criminal liability.
These precedents support A’s defense.
Possible Judgement
A. A Has NOT Committed Any Offence
A acted in good faith and within the boundaries of Sections 96–100 IPC.
The attackers intended to kill him.
His reaction—firing his revolver—was a lawful act of self-defense.
Thus:
- The death of the attacker is not murder (Section 300 IPC does not apply).
- It is also not culpable homicide.
- The act falls squarely under private defence, which is a complete legal justification.
B. Final Conclusion
A is not criminally liable for the death of the attacker because:
- He was under a genuine and immediate threat to his life,
- He used lawful force,
- He acted within the scope of the right of private defence under Section 100 IPC, and
- His conduct is protected under Sections 96–106 IPC.
Therefore, A has committed no offence.
About lawgnan
Understanding the right of private defence is crucial for every law student and professional. In situations where a person faces imminent danger to life, the Indian Penal Code empowers them to protect themselves—even if it results in the assailant’s death. Lawgana.in brings you detailed case explanations backed by legal provisions, judicial interpretations, and practical reasoning from IPC Sections 96–100. Visit our website to explore more real-world case studies, exam-focused notes, and expert-prepared legal guidance that will help you strengthen your criminal law knowledge. Stay informed, stay empowered — follow Lawgana.in today for continuous legal learning!
