Issue (Self Defence)

I. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubts.

The prosecution failed to show the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt as
required by sections 101 and 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution did not produce
enough evidence to demonstrate all the necessary elements of the offence they were charged
with.
It is further submitted that the prosecution should have examined a ballistic expert in this case
and since no expert has been examined, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its
case that the appellants caused the deaths of the two victims by shooting from the rifles which
they carried.
It was noted by this Court in Mohinder Singh v. The State that it has always been thought that
the prosecution's responsibility is to demonstrate through expert testimony that it was likely or
at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon used and in the manner in
which they are alleged to have been caused.
The well-established and succinct legal principle governing the right to private defence of one's
person or property. The burden of proof rests with the accused, but not to the extent of
establishing their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the accused must demonstrate
their right on the basis of the theory of preponderance of probability. They may or may not
specifically mention this defence or offer proof in its favour. However, they can achieve
success in their plea if they are able to bring forth materials from the records of the case,
whether from the prosecution's witness statements or other pieces of evidence, to show that
their apparently criminal act was in fact justified under the right of private defence of person or
property or both. The standard of proof needed to prove the right to a private defence is not
beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, the accused must simply show that it is more likely than not
that their acts were justified, or that there is a preponderance of the evidence.