Site navigation

Direction: Answer the question based on the following Principle and Factual Situation. PRINCIPLE: Duty to protect its citizens and right to punish the offenders vests with the 'State' at all times.…

Question and options

Direction: Answer the question based on the following Principle and Factual Situation.

PRINCIPLE: Duty to protect its citizens and right to punish the offenders vests with the 'State' at all times. However, right to defend one's body or property in certain circumstances can be resorted to by an individual where 'State' protection is not readily available. That is why it is provided in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly the Indian Penal Code, 1860) that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right to defend his property against any act of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass where there is no time to have recourse to the protection of the public authority. This right to private defence of property extends to causing of death of the wrong-doer, if the person exercising the right apprehends that death or grievous hurt at the hands of the aggressor/wrong-doer is inevitable while protecting his property against any such offence or attempt to commit such offence.

FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A's cattle was being regularly stolen and 'A' was unable to apprehend the thief. One night, 'A' finally manages to catch 'B' untying his cow from the cowshed under the cover of darkness. 'A' slowly walked up to 'B' and slashed his neck with a sickle leading to the death of 'B'. Is 'A' guilty of the offence of culpable homicide?
  1. No, 'A' was only exercising his right of private defence of property
  2. No, 'B's' continued stealing of his cattle would have rendered his business inoperable
  3. Yes, 'A' had no reasonable apprehension that 'A' could suffer death or any grievous hurt if he did not kill 'B'
  4. Yes, 'A' should have first challenged 'B' to surrender before taking any steps to cause 'B's' death

Answer and explanation

Correct answer: C - Yes, 'A' had no reasonable apprehension that 'A' could suffer death or any grievous hurt if he did not kill 'B'
Under the principle, private defence of property extends to causing death only if the defender apprehends death or grievous hurt. A simply slashed a thief untying a cow, with no such apprehension, so A is guilty.

Practice for these exams

  • CUSAT CAT LLM

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

More solved explanations in Reasoning