In India, women are given special provision giving special powers to them that they can kill if they apprehend imminent danger of being raped.
But otherwise, there are general powers given in law of private defence by which a person can use force to protect threat to his or her body or property.
But these are very complicated laws to understand. They look attractive in law books. But are hard to apply in real life.
Some years ago, Supreme Court of India gave a ruling that Right of Private Defence includes also Right to kill aggressor in order to protect oneself.
But there was a caveat in ruling. To avail benefit of Private Defence, you have to prove that situation was so serious that it was really not possible for you to save yourself unless you kill the aggressor.
Now, think how can a man prove this, when perverse investigation has charged him with murder and when he is in jail and when he is facing a trial?
The Court says, he has to specifically take this plea in trial court. In other words, first a) he should admit that he killed the deceased and then b) he should prove through evidence that it was in private defence.
No good lawyer will give him advice to admit anything in a criminal trial.
Suppose if he fails in proving necessary requirements of b) Private Defence, then on basis of his own admission of first part a) , he will be convicted for murder and will be sent to serve a life term.
It is too risky. Particularly when crime investigations are not so good in our country.
For the time being, I will conclude by saying that, when society has started becoming insecure more and more, the Right of Private Defence need to be re-looked by Apex Court by keeping in mind hard realities of trial court situations.
No one would like to exercise Right of Private Defence if proving it is made too difficult. Good citizen will become meek and docile with passage of time.
Haresh Raichura
23/5/13 19:33
