Where will be my Fire Arm if I use it in self defence.

[rajveer]

If I use my licenced fire arm in self defence,
That means I fire injuring and or killing someone likely to take my life or distroy my property.
then there will be police case registered,
what will be the status of my fire arm, where it will be, can I retain it after the incident or anyother thing.

Kindly suggest. are there any rules regarding that or Court Judgements.
Regards.

[Anand]

Other than in exceptional situations, you would be arrested immediately , a case will be registered and the said firearm would more than likely be seized and kept as evidence, the license will in all probability be suspended pending the investigation and other firearms on it will likely be "seized or ordered to be deposited" with a dealer or at the police station and then after the conclusion of the case (which may take a few years ), if everything goes in your favour, then the judge may allow you to keep the license and guns.

This is just my opinion, I am not a lawyer. I am only aware of a few instances of these type of cases in the USA, dont know what would actually happen in India. During the time the trial is going on,without access to your guns, I guess you will be a sitting duck if the victims kin want retribution
Regards,
Anand

[rajveer]

Gurus any input on this issue.

Regards.

[grewal]

You will be arrested. Your weapon along with ammo will be confiscated. A murder case will be registered against you under sec 302 ipc along with 25/54/59 arms act. Only during the trial of your case you will need to prove that the murder committed was for self defense . And for that you will have to prove that there was an eminent and gross danger to you or you dear one or to your property. Only if your consul is able to prove that it all happened to safeguard your self , then murder charges will be converted to self defense . Till then you will be treated as murder convict ( in general cases) . There are very few instances where FIR is registered as murder committed for self defense, cause the aggrieved party will press upon the police to levy murder charges against you . Even if you end up proving your innocence , it will take roughly more than 5 years. To get your weapon back you will need to file a fresh application in the same court where you get acquitted and that will take some more time till you get to hold of your weapon. During all these years your weapon will get rusted and mishandled in 'Malkhana' of police. And I am confident that after all these years the weapon will not remain worthy of being used again , unless overhauled . Note- A weapon used to commit murder cannot be deposited with Arms dealer. It has to remain with police. One such case that I know happened 9 years ago and till date they have not been able to get back their gun , although the person got acquitted around 3 years ago. Currently the license is in the process of getting renewed and the gun will be handed back once the license is renewed.

[rajveer]

I read some where long back about ' private defence'.
What is that ? Is it same as self defence.
once again Gurus , kindly help.

I thank in advance..

Regards.

[grewal]

I read some where long back about ' private defence'.
What is that ? Is it same as self defence.
once again Gurus , kindly help.

Private Defence: A Right Available To All People In India

Section 96 to 106 of the penal code states the law relating to the right of private defence of person and property. The provisions contained in these sections give authority to a man to use necessary force against an assailant or wrong-doer for the purpose of protecting one’s own body and property as also another’s body and property when immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available and in so doing he is not answerable in law for his deeds. Section 97 says that the right of private defence is of 2 types:-
(i) Right of private defence of body,
(ii) Right of private defence of property.

Body may be one’s own body or the body of another person and likewise property may be movable or immovable and may be of oneself or of any other person. Self-help is the first rule of criminal law. The right of private defence is absolutely necessary for the protection of one’s life, liberty and property. It is a right inherent in a man. But the kind and amount of force is minutely regulated by law. The use of force to protect one’s property and person is called the right of private defence.
Nature Of The Right
It is the first duty of man to help himself. The right of self-defence must be fostered in the Citizens of every free country. The right is recognised in every system of law and its extent varies in the inverse ratio to the capacity of the state to protect life and property of the subject( citizens). It is the primary duty of the state to protect the life and property of the individuals, but no state, no matter how large its resources, can afford to depute a policeman to dog the steps of every rouge in the country. Consequently this right has been given by the state to every citizen of the country to take law into his own hand for their safety. One thing should be clear that, there is no right of private defence when there is time to have recourse to the protection of police authorities. The right is not dependent on the actual criminality of the person resisted. It depends solely on the wrongful or apparently wrongful character of the act attempted, if the apprehension is real and reasonable, it makes no difference that it is mistaken. An act done in exercise of this right is not an offence and does not, therefore, give rise to any right of private defence in return.

Section 96. Things done in private defence:-
Nothing is an offence, which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

Right of private defence cannot be said to be an offence in return. The right of self-defence under Section 96 is not absolute but is clearly qualified by Section 99 which says that the right in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary for the purpose of defence. It is well settled that in a free fight, no right of private defence is available to either party and each individual is responsible for his own acts. While it is true that law does not expect from the person, whose life is placed in danger, to weigh, with nice precision, the extent and the degrees of the force which he employs in his defence, it also does not countenance that the person claiming such a right should resort to force which is out of all proportion to the injuries received or threatened and far in excess of the requirement of the case. The onus of proving the right of private defence is upon the person who wants to plead it. But an accused may be acquitted on the plea of the right of private defence even though he has not specifically pleaded it. Courts are empowered to exempt in such cases. It must be borne in mind that the burden of proving an exception is on the accused. It is not the law that failure to setup such a defence would foreclose this right to rely on the exception once and for all. It is axiomatic that burden on the accused to prove any fact can be discharged either through defence evidence or even through prosecution evidence by showing a preponderance of probability. It is true that no case of right of private defence of person has been pleaded by the accused not put forth in the cross-examination to the eye-witnesses but it is well settled that if there is a reasonable probability of the accused having acted in exercise of right of private defence, the benefit of such a plea can still be given to them. The right of private defence, as the name suggests, is an act of defence and not of an offence. Consequently, it cannot be allowed to be used as a shield to justify an aggression. This requires a very careful weighing of the facts and circumstances of each case to decide as to whether the accused had in fact acted under this right. Assumptions without any reasonable basis on the part of the accused about the possibility of an attack do not entitle him to exercise this right. It was held in a case that the distance between the aggressor and the target may have a bearing on the question whether the gesture amounted to assault. No precise yardstick can be provided to fix such a distance, since it depends upon the situation, the weapon used, the background and the degree of the thirst to attack etc.

The right of private defence will completely absolve a persons from all guilt even when he causes the death of another person in the following situations, i.e
• If the deceased was the actual assailant, and
• If the offence committed by the deceased which occasioned the cause of the exercise of the right of private defence of body and property falls within anyone of the six or four categories enumerated in Sections 100 and 103 of the penal code.

[rajveer]

grewal Sir what a wonderful explaination, thank you very much Sir.
I read it once , I will read it again , will refer to ipc and come back in case of doubt.
Thanks once again.

Regards.

[spin_drift]

. A murder case will be registered against you under sec 302 ipc along with 25/54/59 arms act.

Just out of curiosity, would they file murder charges or manslaughter? As far as I know and I may be completely wrong in order to prove a murder one need to prove intent… and in order to prove intent they have to prove that it was planned

[goodboy_mentor]

Consequently this right has been given by the state to every citizen of the country to take law into his own hand for their safety.

This right(includes every fundamental right) is not "given" by the State, rather it is given by nature and is merely guaranteed by the Constitution/ State.

[grewal]

Consequently this right has been given by the state to every citizen of the country to take law into his own hand for their safety.

This right is not "given" by the State, rather it is given by nature and is merely guaranteed by the Constitution/ State.

As far as I know and I may be completely wrong in order to prove a murder one need to prove intent… and in order to prove intent they have to prove that it was planned

Weather you had an intention or not has to be proved in the court. You cannot stop police from registering an FIR. And secondly here we are not discussing any specific case. My prospective is of broad nature. The question of intention was not asked here , so I didn't care to mention.

Consequently this right has been given by the state to every citizen of the country to take law into his own hand for their safety.

This right is not "given" by the State, rather it is given by nature and is merely guaranteed by the Constitution/ State.

Well that an emotional approach, But actually rights are given by the state and can be curtailed any time. And one such right to import a weapon was curtailed way back in 1984

[goodboy_mentor]

It is not an emotional approach but a fact. Please read Part III of the Constitution of India, nowhere it is saying that Constitution is granting/ providing/ giving fundamental rights. If you read Article 32, you will find that it is merely guaranteeing the fundamental rights.

If the right to import firearms was restricted and such restriction was affecting fundamental rights, then who has prevented the effected parties to approach High Court or Supreme Court and convince that their fundamental rights are getting affected?

[Pran]

Police response to using a licensed firearm in self defense in a situation depends on a lot of factors. Cases wherein the attacker or would be attacker is a known perpetrator or a habitual offender would work in favour of the person defending himself. If the motive of the trespasser/goon can be established prima facie, it would definitely work in favour of the person defending himself.

Here's an illustration of what I mean-

http://www.3dsyndication.com/dna/article/DNBAN31212

The person who defended himself in this case, an uncle of my landlord was IIRC rewarded by the Bangalore City Police Department.

Regards
Pran

[rajveer]

we need few more responce, isn't it.

Regards.

[xl_target]

It could turn out like this:

A citizen who pursued an armed robber and fatally shot him last week in south Minneapolis acted in self-defense and will not face criminal charges, Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman announced Friday.

The man who killed Darren Evanovich last week was not identified to protect his safety and the integrity of the investigation, a Minneapolis police spokesman said. Police had turned over the case to the county attorney, who said the confrontation between Evanovich and the citizen occurred after a series of robberies this month outside a strip mall on E. Lake Street.

On Oct. 20, the man saw Evanovich pistol-whip a woman and take her purse. The witness, who had a permit to carry a handgun, drove up to Evanovich and asked for the purse back. Evanovich pointed his gun at the man and told him to mind his own business, and the man, still sitting in his car, aimed his own weapon and fired, according to a criminal complaint.

http://m.startribune.com/news/?id=132807258&c=y