The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed, and such right continues so long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues. The threat, however, must reasonably give rise to the present and imminent, and not remote or distant, danger. This right rests on the general principle that where a crime is endeavoured to be committed by force, it is lawful to repel that force in self-defence. To say that the appellant could only claim the right to use force after he had sustained a serious injury by an aggressive wrongful assault is a complete misunderstanding of the law embodied in the above section. The right of private defence is available for protection against apprehended unlawful aggression and not for punishing the aggressor for the offence committed by him. It is a preventive and not punitive right. The right to punish for the commission of offences vests in the State (which has a duty to maintain law and order) and not in private individuals. If after sustaining a serious injury there is no apprehension of further danger to the body then obviously the right of private defence would not be available. [AIR 1973 SC 473 ]
SUPREME COURT UPDATES
A. GOSWAMI VS UOI: SC upheld Press Rights, stayed FIRs except one while restraining coercive action, allowed three weeks for Bail-24/04/2020April 24, 2020
Only 50% Job Reservation is Permissible: SC said in CHEBROLU LEELA PRASAD RAO VS STATE OF A.P – 22/04/2020April 23, 2020
- April 15, 2020
- April 6, 2020
SC quashed reassessment Notice demanded Rs 405.09 cr by IT from NDTV but allowed to send a fresh Notice U/S 147 of IT ACTApril 5, 2020
SC issued notice to States Prison Depts, to show cause why directions should not be issued for dealing Corona virus crisisMarch 17, 2020
- February 18, 2020
Political parties must publish on party websites and other media about candidates with criminal background: SCFebruary 13, 2020
Despite not providing for anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act, however Court can quash FIRs for want of Prima facie case: SCFebruary 11, 2020
SC can`t direct Govt to provide reservation and States are not bound to make reservation for ST and SC in matters of promotions.February 10, 2020
Current Supreme Court Judgments
- May 9, 2020
QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT-The learned counsel for the accused No. 5 was at pains to persuade us that the said accused is now about 70/75 years of age and at this distance of time, it may not be appropriate to send him back to jail. Taking overall view of the matter, we are not impressed by this submission. Even in case of offence under Section 326, IPC, which commended to the High Court, the same was punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years and also liable to fine. Had it been a conviction under Section 326, as aforesaid, the sentence of only about five months in the facts of the present case, by no stretch of imagination, was adequate.
- May 9, 2020
Whether the decree passed on a compromise can be challenged by the stranger to the proceedings in a separate suit?
The appellant could file a suit for protection of his right, title or interest devolved on the basis of the stated sale deed dated 6th January, 1984, allegedly executed by one of the party (Sampatiya) to the proceedings in the partition suit, which could be examined independently by the Court on its own merits in accordance with law.
- May 8, 2020
The common parlance test”, “marketability test”, “popular meaning test” are all tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on proper classification of a tariff entry. These tests, however, would be required to be applied if a particular tariff entry is capable of being classified in more than one heads.