Indians For Guns

goodboy_mentor wrote:RTI Act is not about getting clarifications or opinions. It is about getting existing information "as is".

Instead you can do RTI with MHA to:

1) Provide total number of all kinds of violent crimes including murder, attempt to murder, rape, unnatural lust, kidnapping, dacoity etc. done in last ten years.

2) How many out of the above were done after giving threats?

3) How many of the above victims of crime were VIPS having police protection?

Such a killing is permissible under the law, and cannot be equated with murder, a bench of justices Dalveer Bhandari and Asok Kumar Ganguly said.

A person cannot be expected to act in a cowardly manner when faced with an imminent threat to life, and has got every right to kill the aggressor in self-defence, the supreme court has held.

Such a killing is permissible under the law, and cannot be equated with murder, a bench of justices Dalveer Bhandari and Asok Kumar Ganguly said.

"The law does not require a law-abiding citizen to behave like a coward when confronted with an imminent, unlawful aggression. As repeatedly observed by this court, there is nothing more degrading to the human spirit than to run away in face of danger.

"The right of private defence is thus designed to serve a social purpose, and deserves to be fostered within the prescribed limits," the bench said in a judgement.

The apex court passed the judgement while acquitting a convict, Darshan Singh, of the murder of his uncle Gurcharan Singh on July 15, 1991, in Punjab's Ludhiana district over a land dispute.

Darshan Singh shot dead Gurcharan Singh after the latter attacked the accused's father Bakthawar Singh with a lethal weapon on the head, and then proceeded to attack him. In the scuffle that ensued, Darshan Singh shot dead Gurcharan Singh.

The sessions court had acquitted him on the ground that Darshan Singh had exercised his right of self-defence provided under Sections 96-106 of the Indian Penal Code.

However, on an appeal from the state, the acquittal was reversed and the high court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment, following which he appealed in the apex court.

Interpreting Section 96-106 of the IPC which justifies the killing of an assailant, the apex court said, the provision can be invoked where a person has a genuine apprehension that his adversary is going to attack him and reasonably believes that the attack will result in a grievous hurt.

"In that event, he can go to the extent of causing the latter's death in the exercise of the right of private defence, even though the latter may not have inflicted any blow or injury on him.

"The question whether the apprehension was reasonable or not is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be prescribed in this regard.

"The weapon used, the manner and nature of assault and other surrounding circumstances should be taken into account while evaluating whether the apprehension was justified or not," the bench held.

According to the apex court, while enacting sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code, "the legislature clearly intended to arouse and encourage the manly spirit of self-defence amongst the citizens, when faced with grave danger."

The apex court said the right to protect one's own person and property against the unlawful aggressions of others is a right inherent in man.

"The duty of protecting the person and property of others is a duty which man owes to society of which he is a member, and the preservation of which is both, his interest and duty.

It is, indeed, a duty which flows from human sympathy, the bench observed.

However, the bench cautioned that such protection must not be extended beyond the necessities of the case, otherwise, it will encourage a spirit or lawlessness and disorder. The right, therefore, has been restricted to offences against the human body and those relating to aggression on property, it said.

"A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defence into operation, but it is also settled position of law that a right of self-defence is only right to defend oneself and not to retaliate. It is not a right to take revenge.

"The citizens, as a general rule, are neither expected to run away for safety when faced with grave and imminent danger to their person or property as a result of unlawful aggression," the bench said, while directing Darshan Singh's acquittal.

goodboy_mentor wrote:There is no "official" or "judicial" clarity about RKBA. In other words RKBA in Article 19 and because of RKBA in Article 19, the existence of Articles 51A(c) & (d) has not been explored by judiciary. But if one reads these three articles along with preamble, it become clear that doctrine of 2nd Amendment exists in Indian Constitution. In other words Constitution does not want the Indian State to have monopoly of violence and tools of violence. That is exactly why it makes fundamental duty of every citizen to defend and protect the Indian State.

Otherwise if citizens do not have RKBA then let the State defend itself without Articles 51A(c) & (d). If such is the case then RKBA also does not exist for the State since Article 14 guarantees equality. Then another substantial question of law arises, how is State seeking exemption for itself under Arms Act if RKBA is not a right? For example since murder, torture etc. is not a right of State under Part III, that is why there is no exemption for State under laws from murder, torture etc.

For judgements you may refer the following:

1) http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15638

2) http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15639

3) http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17795

4) http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 95#p173906

5) Supreme Court under Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab / Criminal Appeal 1057 of 2002, Date of Judgment 15.01.2010.

But there is judicial clarity about right of private defense as done by Supreme Court under Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab. So keeping this in mind, if you do the RTIs wisely and then take up the matter with MHA, Law Ministry and Law Commission then maybe in due course something might transpire to correct the vague provisions of Arms Act 1959.

goodboy_mentor wrote:Though I am no "expert" but will share my ideas. Feel free to ask.

goodboy_mentor wrote:Sections 96 to 106 IPC for Right of Private Defense flow from Article 21.

Do not know if NCRB classifies crimes for which Right of Private Defense is allowed. If you can get data for such crimes(including terrorism, riots etc.) that would be good. How may such crimes done after threat?

How many acts of terrorism/ insurgency done? How many acts of terrorism/ insurgency done using guns with valid arms licenses issued under Arms Act 1959?

Also data of victims if they were armed under Arms Act 1959 to defend themselves. These victims if unarmed were not able to exercise right of private defense.

How many arms license applications under Arms Act 1959 received. How many issued? Average time for issue?

How many rejected? How many rejected for no threat? Average time for rejection? How many pending? Average pending time?

Of the rejected applications, how many found to be done by members of illegal organizations related to mafia/ underworld/ terrorism/ insurgency etc.?

You may think on these lines so that the information proves what you want to prove.

goodboy_mentor wrote:Dear Sir,

Please first ascertain which department is maintaining records of the concerned police organization. Then place RTI with PIO of that office. You may visit the following link and see http://mha.nic.in/attached

I would suggest to give sufficient time while preparing RTI questions so that they do not get excuses to deny information on one pretext or other. Make questions to the point and as specific as possible.