2.
Whether the force used by Rajesh was proportionate to the threat he perceived, or did it
exceed the limits of reasonable self-defence?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court the force used by Rajesh was proportionate to
the threat he perceived, it did exceed the limits of reasonable self-defence. The counsel submits
two arguments for the same (1) application of force exceeded the right of private defence (2) plea
cannot be based on surmises and speculation
(1) application of force exceeded the right of private defence
Section 96 states the general proposition that “nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise
of the right of private defence. However, the only corollary for the exercise of this right is that
the violence which the citizen defending himself or his property is entitled to use must not be
unduly disproportionate to the injury which is sought to be averted or which is reasonably
apprehended and should not exceed to a legitimate purpose.
In this case, Rajesh retrieved a baseball bat, a potentially lethal weapon, in response to feeling
threatened by one of the individuals involved in the altercation. However, the mere presence of
an argument does not necessarily justify using deadly force.
The Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Pandey v. State of U.P. held that whether a person has
exceeded his right of private defence or not is a question of fact. It depends upon the
circumstances and the emergent situation of life and death created thereby. This ruling thus
establishes that right of private defence does not have a set test to pass but it differs from case to
case and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The respondent scrutinizes the
facts and circumstances of the present case to prove a case of right of private defence.
Rajesh's decision to escalate the situation by arming himself with a weapon indicates a
disproportionate response to the perceived threat. Instead of attempting to de-escalate the conflict
or seeking assistance from law enforcement, Rajesh chose to confront the aggressor with a
deadly weapon, resulting in fatal consequences.
The same is supported by Nathan v. State of Madras, where the Supreme Court held that by the
principle of proportionality, the accused’s right was limited to causing any harm other than
death, which, however, was exceeded, and the accused was thereby convicted.
(2) plea cannot be based on surmises and speculation
The Supreme Court in the decision of Shriram v. State of M.P. (2004) 9 SCC 292 held that the
plea cannot be based on surmises and speculation and situations are to be judged pragmatically
keeping in view normal human reaction and conduct, where self-preservation is the paramount
consideration.
The Supreme Court in Dharam and Others v. State of Haryana (2007) 15 SCC 241 also held A
person's action shall be analyzed based on the facts and circumstances and should not be met
with high scrutiny but should be given due consideration to ensure a fair and comprehensive
understanding of the situation, taking into account the individual's intentions, context, and any
mitigating factors.
Taking into consideration the fact that rather than resorting to wielding a baseball bat as a means
of defense, Rajesh had the option to promptly contact the police or nearby security personnel
upon hearing the disturbance outside his shop. He could have simply called the police at the
moment when he had gone to retrieve the bat. This shows that the circumstances gave him the
chance to choose an alternative course of action but instead he opted for a violent means. The
right of private defence must never be vindictive or malicious, as it contradicts its very essence.
Also taking into account the situation one has to consider the shop's location at the main
crossroad in Tanakpur, immediate assistance was readily available to him. Additionally, upon
realizing that his intervention was exacerbating rather than alleviating the situation, he could
have chosen to withdraw. The underlying premise underscores the town's commitment to
communal peace and harmony.
Therefore, Rajesh's decision to resort to physical force should be regarded as an anomaly rather
than a justifiable reaction.
