Case Analysis

The case in question involves a dispute between two individuals, Damrulal and the deceased
Bucha, at a cottage where the former was overseeing foundation-digging. The argument
between the two escalated to the point that Damrulal threatened to settle the matter
shortly. Soon after, Damrulal, along with his brothers Ganesh and the appellant, entered the
deceased’s residence. Ganesh prompted his brother Har Charan to grab hold of Bucha and
kill him. Har Charan dragged the deceased up to a neem tree and beat him with fists and
kicks. Bucha managed to disentangle himself from their grip and picked up a Khutai lying
close, which he used to give three blows on the head of Har Charan, rendering him
unconscious. The appellant, Ganesh and Damrulal then snagged hold of Bucha and the
appellant snatched the Khutai from the deceased’s hand and bestowed two or three blows
on his head, killing him.
The prosecution assessed four eyewitnesses of the incident, namely Kanhaiyalal (P.W. 6),
Mst. Khumania (P.W.1), MstTujia (P.W.2), and Bhagola (P.W.3). The Additional Sessions Judge
depended on the evidence of Khumania, Tujia and Bhagola to the importance that the
appellant, Ganesh and Damrulal had gone to the home of Bucha and whacked him by fists
and kicks. He also said that Bucha disengaged himself from their grip and picked up a khutai.
He gave three hits on the head of Har Charan and became unconscious. The appellant
wrestled with Bucha and grabbed the khutai from his hand. He then gave two or three blows
on the head of Bucha and became unconscious.
The Additional Sessions Judge was of the impression that after Bucha had the khutai there
was an adequate apprehension of grievous injury in the mind of the appellant. So when the
appellant snatched the khutai from his hand and struck blows on his head, he was behaving
in the activity of the right of self-defence and hence, he had no intention to cause terrible
hurt to Bucha or to seize his vitality. He held that only the appellant was responsible for
causing injuries to Bucha, and hence, the appellant was vindicated as well as his co-accused
and three persons lived strived for the murder of one Bucha by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Tikamgarh.
However, the State petitioned against the judgment of the Sessions Judge to the High Court
on the ground convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to
imprisonment for life and convicted Ganesh and Damrulal under Section 323 I.P.C and
assessed a sentence of Rs. 50/- each which they have not contested.
The present case is an example of self-defence and the right to defend oneself from injury.
The analysis of this case will focus on the legal aspects of self-defence and the right to
defend oneself in cases of assault.
The right to self-defence is enshrined in Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code. The section
states: “Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence”.
The right to defend oneself is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. The
Supreme Court of India in the case of Dhananjay Sharma vs State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1993
SC 1378] held that “the right of private defence is a natural right inherent in an individual
and is recognised and guaranteed by the Constitution of India”.
The right of self-defence is available to any person who is faced with an imminent danger of
death or grievous hurt to himself or any other person. The danger must be an immediate
one and not one that is remote or speculative. The defence can be used only when there is
no other reasonable means of escape or protection.
Under the Indian Penal Code, the right of self-defence can be divided into three parts:
1. The right of private defence of the body:
This right is available to a person who is faced with an imminent threat of death or grievous
hurt to himself or any other person. The person can use reasonable force to defend himself
or any other person from the attack.
2. The right of private defence of property:
This right is available to a person who is faced with an imminent threat of theft, mischief or
criminal trespass with regard to his property. The person can use reasonable force to protect
his property from the attack.
3. The right of private defence against murder:
This right is available to a person who is faced with an imminent threat of murder or
grievous hurt to himself or any other person. The person can use reasonable force to defend
himself or any other person from the attack.
In the present case, it can be seen that the deceased, Bucha, was faced with an imminent
threat of grievous hurt to himself or any other person. He was attacked by three men, who
were threatening him and attempting to kill him. In such a situation, the deceased had the
right to defend himself using reasonable force. He used the khutai to defend himself and
gave three blows on the head of Har Charan, rendering him unconscious. In an attempt to
defend himself from the attack, he was then killed by the appellant, who had snatched the
khutai from his hand and bestowed two or three blows on his head.
The Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the appellant was acting in the exercise of the
right of self-defence and hence, he had no intention to cause terrible hurt to Bucha or to
seize his vitality. He held that only the appellant was responsible for causing injuries to
Bucha, and hence, the appellant was vindicated as well as his co-accused and three persons
lived strived for the murder of one Bucha by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh.
The case in question is an example of self-defence and the right to defend oneself from
injury. The analysis of this case highlights the legal aspects of self-defence and the right to
defend oneself in cases of assault. The case also serves to highlight the importance of the
right of self-defence as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. The case also
highlights the need for individuals to exercise caution and use reasonable force when
defending themselves against an imminent threat of injury or death.