DEO NARAIN versus THE STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 57 · Decided: 11-12-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: I.D. DUA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
r 
E 
F 
G 
57 
DEO NARAIN 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. 
December 11, 1972 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I. D. DUA AND C. A. VAID!ALINGAM, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), Ss. 100 and 102-Right of pri-
vate defence-Scope of. 
There was a clash between the parties of the accused and complai-
nant over the possession of certain land; in which the appellant inflicted a 
fatal spear injury on the chest of the deceased. 
In • prosecution for off-
ences under &. 302 and s. 302/149, I.P.C., the trial court and the High 
Court found that the party of the complaina:nt had deliberately come to 
forcibly prevent or obstruct the possession of. the accused persons, and 
that such forcible obstruction and pm-ention were unlawful. But while the 
trial Court acquit~ all the accused on the ground that the accused were 
exercising their right of private defence, the 
High Court held that tho 
appellant exceeded his right of private defence on the sole ground that 
he had used his spear with greater force than was necessary, that he had 
given a dangerous blow with considerable force with a spear on the chest 
of the deceased though he himself had only received a superficial lathi 
blow on his head, and convicted him for an offence under s. 304. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: The High Court erred in conviciting the 
appellant on the 
ground that he exceeded his right of private defence. [60D-E] 
To say that the appellant could only claim the right to use force after 
he had sustained· a serious injury by an aggressive \vrongfut assault is a 
complete misunderstanding of the law embodied in s. 102, I.P.C. According 
to that section 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 oflence, though the offence moy not have been 
committed, and such right continues so lo.ng as such 
apprehnsion 
of 
danger to the body continues. The threat, however, must reasonably give 
rise to the present and imminent, and not to remote or distant. danger. This 
right rests on the principle that where a crime is endeavoured to be com· 
mitted by force, it is lawful to repel that force in self-defence. The right 
of private defepce is available for protection a'gainst apprehended unl::.'.\I· 
tfu~ aggressil?n and not for punishing the aggress-or for the offcnc~ r:om-
m~tt~d by him. It is a preventive and not a punitive right. 
}f, 2.~t<.!r s-us. 
ta1n1ng a serious injury there is no apprehension of further. danger to the 
body then obviously the right of private defence would '!lOt be a1'ailoble 
[60D-H, 6JA] 
. 
. 
. Thelcefore, as soon as the appellant reasonably apprehended danger to 
h!S ,body even from a t~reat (which is real) on the part of the complain-
ants party ~o a~sault him for the purpose of forcibly taking possession 
of th~ land in d1Spute or of obstructing their cultivation, he ~ot the right 
!'f privat.e defence and to use adequate force against the wrongful aggressor 
tn exercise of that right. 
[61A-B] 
,Cb) The •pproach of the High Court that merely because the com-
n!ainant's _Party had u~ed lat~is, the appellant was not justified in using 
his spear is equally m1sconce1ved •~d cannot be supported under s. 100, 
•• 
58 
z, SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] 3 s.c.R. 
" 
l.P.C. During the course of malee, like 'the present, the use of a Jathi 
on the head may very well give rise to " reasonable apprehension that 
death or grievous hurt would result from an injury caused thereby. It 
cannot be laid down as a general rule that the use of a lathi as dis· 
tinguished from the use of a spear must alw~ys be held to result only in 
milder injury, because, a blow by a lathi on the head may prove instan• 
taneously fatal. Therefore, if a blow with a lathi is aimed &t a vulnerable 
part like the head it cannot be laid doMt as a sou:t>d proposition of law 
that in such cases the victim is not justified in using his spear in defend· 
ing himself. 
In such moments of excitement or disturbed mental equili· 
brium it is difficult to expect parties facing grave aggression ta coal!y 
weigh, as if in golden scales, and calmly determine with a composed mind 
20 to what precise kind and severity of blow would be legally sufficient 
for effectively meeting the unlawful aggression. The view of the High 
Court is not ·only unreulistic and unpractical but also contrary to law 
and in conflict wjtb its own observations, 
'~"hile acquiting the ot

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.