Law does not require a citizen to be a coward: SC
Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN, 17 January 2010, 02:59am IST
Text Size:
NEW DELHI: At a time when terrorism and mafia pose a grave security threat to India, the Supreme Court has given a pro-active meaning to the `right to self-defence' and said the law does not require a law-abiding citizen to behave like a coward when confronted with an imminent unlawful aggression.
Nothing is more degrading to the human spirit than to run away in the face of danger, said a Bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and A K Ganguly. It laid down a 10-point guideline on right to self-defence, under which a person cannot be accused of committing a crime even if he inflicted mortal wounds on the aggressor.
But, it warned against using it as a tool to settle scores or enmity. It also did not approve the use of force in excess of what was warranted to avert imminent danger to the life and property of the person exercising the right to self-defence.
"The citizen, 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, nor are they expected, by use of force, to right the wrong done to them or to punish the wrong doer of commission of offence," said Justice Bhandari writing the judgment for the Bench.
"The right of private defence is thus designed to serve a social purpose and deserves to be fostered within the prescribed limits," it said.
When can one resort to his right to self-defence? "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 Bench said.
Taking a closer look at the SC judgments of the last 50 years, the Bench crystallised a 10-point guideline to make a common man understand his right to self-defence and its operation. The main points are:
Right to self-defence available to only one facing imminent danger
Mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put this right into operation
It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude
Force used in self-defence ought not to be wholly disproportionate than necessary for protection of self or property
Person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self-defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 453715.cms
.
