In Yogendra Morarji v. State an unlawful assembly tried to stop and intercept the vehicle of the accused with the common object of extorting money from him by putting him under fear of injury. The accused fired three rounds by his revolver one of which caused the death of a member.

The Supreme Court held that as soon as the assembly members raised their hands in the gesture of stopping the vehicle, the right of private defence had begun under section 102 of the Code but there was never any reasonable apprehension of any of the offences mentioned under section 100 being committed. Consequently, even if the members might have been pelting stones or brick pieces on the vehicle, a station wagon, the accused could have sped away, may be after firing a shot in the air. Under these circumstances, therefore, he was not justified in killing the deceased.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

In State v. Hazara Singh, a unarmed assailant threw a single stone piece or brickbat at the accused which caused a simple head injury. After sometime had elapsed the accused fired a shot at the unarmed assailant causing him grievous injury on the abdomen. The Supreme Court disallowed the plea of private defence as it did not seem to be an act in defence but in retaliation.

In Mohinder Pal v. State? agitating workers of a factory threw some brickbats at their factory building in support of their demands. The owner of the factory fired a shot by his revolver which resulted in the death of a worker. The Supreme Court rejected the right of private defence as only the offence of mischief was caused on the factory building which did not justify the killing as no clause of section 100 was attracted, while for other offences section 101 of the Code does not permit causing of death.

Post Author: admin


I'm Irvin!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out