Get Answers to all your Questions

header-bg qa

Read the following passage and answer the question.

The right of private defence of people is recognized in all free, civilised, and democratic societies within certain reasonable limits. Those limits are dictated in two considerations:

Every member of society can claim this right- That the state takes responsibility for the maintenance of law and order-This right of private defence is preventive and not punitive.

Supreme Court said that the right of private defence is a defensive right surrounded by the law and is available only when the person is able to justify his circumstances. This right is available against an offence and therefore, where an act is done in the exercise of the right of private defence, such an act cannot go in favour of the aggressor. The legal position which has been crystallised from a large number of cases is that the law does not require a citizen, however law-abiding he may be, to behave like a rank coward on any occasion. This principle has been enunciated in Mahandi v. Emperor. In Gotipulla Venkatasiva Subbrayanam & Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Another (1970) 1 SCC 235, this court held that "the right to private defence is a very valuable right and it has been recognized in all civilized and democratic societies within certain reasonable limits. 

The extent to which the right may be exercised. - The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. The extent to which the right may be exercised. - The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. The main question that arises for adjudication, in this case, is whether the accused-appellants had the right of private defence and this is the case of exceeding the right of private defence meaning thereby, inflicting more harm than it was necessary for the purpose of defence.

Question :

Murti saw some men harassing Yamuna in an empty boggy. Murti while trying to save Yamuna caught hold of one minor boy and beat the guy badly. Decide.

Option: 1

Murti does not have any right as Yamuna was harassed not Murti


Option: 2

Murti has the right to protect others too


Option: 3

Murti does not have the right to private defence


Option: 4

None of the above


Answers (1)

best_answer

Murti has the right to protect the body of Yamuna. The right to private defence extends to protect the body of other too.

Posted by

Ajit Kumar Dubey

View full answer