Shoot an intruder- Go directly to JAIL!

[hvj1]

Reading some of the Idiotic Landmark decisions handed by some British Courts, prompted me to ponder on what the outcome would be in India, if I found myself in the following situation;
1. I get up in the middle of the night, find an intruder.
2. I am armed with my 5 shot mag. krico rifle, the safety is off and;
(a) Perceiving threat to my life I shoot him dead.
The Police is called in, I accompany the Police with my gun, on my way I call a lawyer.
(a) Having shot the intruder dead, my gun is confiscated, I have to spend the night in Jail, till I am produced in Court, booked under IPC 302. (Homicide).
(b)Whether I get bail or not, depends on my Lawyer and the Judges perspective.
(c) My Lawyer will try to get me off on bail on the grounds of Self Defence, parade my honorable charachter, medals, certificates, awards and distinguished service with various govt. organisations. However,If the bail is turned down, then I go to Police Custody, till such time my case appears in court for a hearing. So I get to spend quality time in the company of gentlemen who have exercised career options along the less beaten path.
(d) As and when the case comes up for hearing, my lawyer, will attempt to prove that the homicide is justifiable.
(e) The kith and kin of the dead fellow, through their lawyer, will also go to court trying to prove, that the deceased was indeed an honorable fellow, who happened to have lost his way and that I had shot the poor bug*3r somewhere else, that I have fabricated the story of shooting him inside my house, while all the while, I , having shot the fellow, carted the bug*3r in my car and dumped the body inside the house to show deliberately that the shooting was in self-defence.
I request my fellow IFGians, who are well versed in the letters of the Law, to kindly discuss the above issue (based on the hypothetical case), so that we could all gain and should we happen to find ourselves in such a situation, then our actions should be dictated by foresight rather than hindsight.
BR

[goodboy_mentor]

I request my fellow IFGians, who are well versed in the letters of the Law, to kindly discuss the above issue (based on the hypothetical case), so that we could all gain and should we happen to find ourselves in such a situation, then our actions should be dictated by foresight rather than hindsight.

Problems not only with just the letters of the law, but practical problems if intruder happens to have the backing of "local powers that matter", be prepared for real threats of all kinds to you and your family, including demands for compensation to the dependents of the intruder, a "Dharna", brick-batting etc. in front of your house for having killed an "innocent" person and the possible manipulations by police under pressure to tilt case in favour of the intruder.
I would request lawyers familiar with such cases to give us their opinion.

[professor]

mmmm hvj1
u are almost correct in narrating the situation...but that's way law works. To my knowledge much more depends on the circumstantial evidence & how the minor details are presented by ur lawyer in the court. As the actions of the deceased immediately prior to the death may clearly indicate the nature of act I mean suicidal, homicidal or accidental.For example the note should be taken of the position of the body and or the lividity to see whether the body has been moved after death or not. Apart from that minor details like presence of mud stains or superficial injuries always suggest that body has been dragged from elsewhere or not. It entirely depends on how carfully & honestly "panchnama" is done & facts r noted by police & finallly ur luck. But I think shooting the intruder hastly is not the way to defend urself as such. B'coz it is also observed that people also try to prove the opposite ( means innocent person as an intruder) ....regards



professor

[shooter]

hvj bhai, what i am about to write might not be ethical/moral to some people but this is what happens at least in india.

if u dont have a proof of injury etc on ur person, it might be difficult to cite self defence. Did u fire a warning shot in the air. can you prove he was trying to kill you. of course you wont be charged with cold blooded murder but maybe homicide (man slaughter).

i dont want to go into what you should do in some circumstances to get urself aquitted (thats the lawyers work plus its not good to discuss that here). but be sure you dont get caught with the weapon on person. that is the first and foremost thing. second thing dont get caught over there with the body. even if its your house, dont wait there. call your lawyer, then go to a friends or a relatives house. im not saying hide from police. but dont be present at "mauka-e-vardaat'

bro i will tell u something, its not a pleasent experience; i hope none of us have to go through this. being in a murder case, ek baar to president key grandson ke bhi pasiney nikal jaatey hain.

the next thing is ones concience. one day i caugfht a man in my house, i asked him what he was doing there, he got scared and said he was 'looking for water'. u know the "pyau' or the water huts they erect in summers all over india to provide free water to people.

I asked him if he really believed there was such a place in my house. i gave him a few slaps and punches. he ran away. till today I still wonder if he really was innocent and feel guilty for hitting him. can you imagine what it must be like taking a life

[Sakobav]

shooter

Very well put in and summarized the onus to prove that one was threatened lies on defendant. ...Guns should be the very last resort..Your are also correct about the emotional toll (atleast for normal folks) if unfortunately one gets in situation...Carrying guns for protection it aint what all its made up to be..

[drifter]

Dear Shooter,

agree with you, my doubt is where is the line drawn to act in self defence and when is self defence justified?. What happens if the intruder is armed, does one need to get injured to begin the act of self defence?. Is there any law reg this situation and is it clear?.

drifter.

[biking3819]

Hi,
From a narrated incidence that occurred in pune by a freind of mine,i realised that to prove self defence in case of a women shooting an intruder on self defence has much better chance of geting aquited by court of law,in this particular case the intruder was shot using the revolver of her husband and no family member was present at that point,three intruders had approached with sharp weapons,i even heard that later she was been felicitated by the commissioner and also recommended for an arms license,it also depends on your location,as in this case the location of home was isolated and the nearest police station was far.
regards sanjiv

[jaypreet]

Dear HVJ1,

In my opinion, you can scare him off using a gun, or just shoot at his legs, just to injure him and not to kill him. I think, Indian law also permits Police to use guns, to shoot at criminals below waist level. Encounters are different issue.

The other day in a similar situation, an intruder was caught by my Boxer, The huge boxer just sat on his chest & started barking and the man started crying "bachao, bachao!! kutte ko nikalo, muze jane do". The fellow was lucky that day, because my Rottweiler was in the shop.

So it is better to keep a dog in the house, to take care of intruders.

jaypreet

[goodboy_mentor]

agree with you, my doubt is where is the line drawn to act in self defence and when is self defence justified?. What happens if the intruder is armed, does one need to get injured to begin the act of self defence?. Is there any law reg this situation and is it clear?.

As far as I know, for violent crime law primarily takes help of circumstantial evidence and witness. To illustrate how things can sometimes get shaped in reality by a hypothetical situation(this does not mean, that this is the only thing that always happens). A killer along-with his accomplice went to a house and shot dead the owner of the house, the victim before dying fired 2 shots at his assailant, but assailant survived. Assailant's lawyer was able to convince the court that his client had only gone to the house of deceased to speak to him about a "local" issue, instead he was fired upon by the deceased. Hence his client had to fire in self defense, the case was supported by "circumstantial" evidence(2 bullets from deceased in the attacker) and the "witness" his accomplice, who was very well "doctored" to be able to withstand cross examination by prosecution.
Not to mention the problems created by assailant by the "virtue" of being close to a "politically sound" family, by creating pressure on the police to present the case to court in such a manner that it is not able to stand in favor of the deceased and creating relentless pressure by means of veiled threats/intimidation forcing the widow/family of deceased not to pursue case in High Court and making her/them leave the present house and relocating somewhere else for safety.

[Zake]

Very sticky ground indeed. But there will be a couple of question regarding your 'crime' at least to my common sense. By the way this is not legal advise in any form.

1. Is there a sign of forced entry. I mean did the victim just walked inside or broke inside.
2. Motive. I believe most murders or homicides have a motive behind them if not all. A respected established man of your stature all of a sudden shot chingi chor with your own rifle inside your own home, then called the police yourself without any motive seems a little odd.

But these points can only be raised successfully with the help of a good lawyer present. I suppose most gun owners who keep guns for safety purposes should be in touch with capable sympathetic lawyers who can make a difference is circumstances like these. Maybe most gun-owning IFGians should. Better safe than sorry right ?

Regards,

Zake

[tingriman]

Dear members,

Well said, the apprehensions are quite natural, as laws can be twisted and facts distorted by people these days. But my belief to basic question posed by hvj1 is, it always a bargain to save your life and face all consequences later rather than to die at the hands of a criminal.

cheers,
tingriman

[hvj1]

to save your life and face all consequences later rather than to die at the hands of a criminal.

With the help of all my good friends who have responded here. I have finally concluded, that only if I reach a situation where the above line by Tingriman holds true, THEN & THEN ALONE WILL I SHOOT

[Biren]

to save your life and face all consequences later rather than to die at the hands of a criminal.

With the help of all my good friends who have responded here. I have finally concluded, that only if I reach a situation where the above line by Tingriman holds true, THEN & THEN ALONE WILL I SHOOT

Hi,
Very righty said. It all depends. While examing the case, Judge is going to see whether use of force was appropriate or not. There are lots of if and buts. For example:

- if a person armed with a stick threatens you, and you retaliate shooting the guy, then thats excessive force.
or
- if you are attacked by knife and open fire in self defence injuring the attacker and then again fire at him who is now running for his life killing him then thats excessive use of Force.

or Even numerically superior enemy on run benefits by this dictum..."Force used should not be in excess and only for self defence".

Law say self defence thats Force used to protect should not be in excessive. What is excessive Force and what is self defence depends from case to case.

Cheers,
Biren

Law is very clear on one issue that no body should take law in his or her own hands.

[hvj1]

Thanks Biren, Zake,shooter,jaypreet, good boy,ngrewal,drifter,professor and tingriman,
but lets continue the discussion, more and more sound advice is emerging, which can only help all of us to act with cold reason rather than John Wayne.
Best Regards

[mundaire]

I think I have mentioned this earlier, 10 years or so back one of my mom's friend's, had stabbed to death an intruder using a kitchen knife. She heard a sound in the middle of the night, her husband did not wake up as he was on medication, she went downstairs, saw a pair of shoes sticking out from under the drawing room curtains, quietly went to the kitchen and made as if she had gone for a glass of water, got the longest knife she could find there and then went back to the drawing room and stabbed the curtain with all her might... fairly soft spoken and diminutive in appearance, she took what measures were necessary to protect her family and herself!

Her name made it to the front page the next day and she was hailed as a heroine by the cops...

While I am not a lawyer, I do think that if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you have every reason to suspect the worst. Decent law abiding people, do not break into other people's homes in the middle of the night just to join you for a cup of tea! In such circumstances it could be argued that waiting to ascertain how well the intruders are armed could expose your family & you to unnecessary risk, furthermore while outside on the street you may have the option to run, if you are in your own home, where are you supposed to run to? There can be no guarantee of how many accomplices of his/ theirs may await you on your exit attempt, you could end up literally out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Of course I wouldn't suggest the Krico .22 rifle as the ideal tool for defending yourself in this situation, but then I guess whatever is handy will have to do.

If there is more than one resident at home, then ideally while the others are trying to eliminate the threat, one resident should be asked to dial the emergency numbers to let the cops know your situation. Under no circumstances should any attempt be made to lie to the cops or to fudge the real situation... you will only succeed in raising the suspicions of the police if you try such hanky panky tricks. The police deals with hardened criminals every day and most seasoned cops don't need a lie detector machine to tell them when someone is lying... they also tend to suspect everyone and everything. So best stick to the truth, it works out best in the long run.

Cheers!
Abhijeet