Whether this amounts to Pvt Defence

Dear,

Private defence can be raised only when there is a reasonable force used on grave and sudden provocation or to protect the person from any possible damage.

It means she has no right for private defence?

Private defence should be reasonable to protect her from possible damage or injury or physical threat or based on grave and sudden provocation. it doesnt mean that a person can be killed under the pretext of self defence. even though her act wont come to murder since her intention was not to kill him.

Dear All,

 

As the provision clearly defines, it is right of private defence and not offence.

 

Any force used in defence could be justified and excused by law but offensive action could not pardoned as it constitute using of force which was interwined with anger.

 

In the given case the girl has exceeded her right of defence though hitting on groin might not amount to murder but yes some other lighter punishment could be awarded like grevious hurt etc.

 

//peace

/Saurabh..V

Merely "eve teasing" cannot be a ground for causing death in private defense. If any of the six conditions mentioned under Section 100 IPC are present then only causing of death can be justified. Right of Private Defense is explained from Sections 96 to 106 IPC. Sections 100 and 102 IPC deal about conditions under which causing of death can be justified.

Section 100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death

The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descripttions hereinafter enumerated, namely :--

 

First-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

 

Secondly-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

 

Thirdly-An assault with the intention of committing rape;

 

Fourthly-An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;

 

Fifthly-An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;

 

Sixthly-An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.

Section 102. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body

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 it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do not let your fundamental of fundamental rights, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to be subverted under any colour or pretext. Fight for your rights: https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/RKBA-guaranteed-under-Articles-19-and-21-of-Constitution-36011.asp

For grievous hurt, the person must have been survived or hospitalised but here death have caused. 

If punishment to awrded to woamn why in self defence classes, the art of hitting in vital parts have been taught?

This is within reasonable knowledge that hitting on vital parts such as grion, stomach etc may also lead to death of person  if sufficient traumatised.

Moreover eve teasing is also part of gratifying unnatural lust

Dear anonymous law is not going to bend as per your personal wishes and definitions. Eve teasing is not unatural lust within the meaning of Section 100 IPC. For purpose of Section 100 IPC unnatural lust is sodomy etc. Whatever is taught about in self defense classes with purpose of killing the oponent under right of private defense can only be justified under Sections 100 IPC and 103 IPC.

@Author

 

This is NOT a private defence at all. If you would have kicked him in his stomach or even would have slapped him, then also it does nto amoutn to private defence.

 

What the eve-teaser do is verbal comment which cannot be regarded as grave as endangering your life. You should understand that self-defence is for your defence and not for being offensive. You have to face consequeces if you exceed your right of private defence.

 

Try to analyze this situation. A man "X" walking down the road meets another man "Y" who is his enemy. "Y" passes some derogatory remarks against "X" and "X" attacks him and kicks his groin. Now you yourself tell me, would this be a private defence?

 

//peace

/Saurabh..V

In my version, some rights have been given to woman for self defence but in your case the motive of woamn may not be there as she used self defence strategy for avoiding such kind of trouble If eveteaser stands in front of her then she may not have any option left and I think she may used it for escape

But infortunately if death has cuased then it may used it against if there are no eye witnesses

It very dificult to comment on the circumstances

I think self dence/marital arts may have give training but also awre the learners about the consequencies. So equal proprtionate to be given while takling this issue so that for even trifling matters one may not have used it except in every extreme cases

I agree with Mr/Mis Anonymous to some extent as in majoity of TV Shows/movies this kind of practices are now commonly seen