A Drafting Error Cannot Override Constitutional Rights: Rajasthan High Court Directs Correction In Udaipur Master Plan–2031 To Uphold Property Rights Uttering That a Woman Is a Prostitute in Public Can Amount to Abetment of Suicide: Bombay High Court Declines to Quash FIR Under Section 306 IPC PMLA | Stay on Predicate Offence Eclipses Money Laundering Probe; NBWs Cancelled for Cooperating Accused: Allahabad High Court Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus Not Applicable in Criminal Law: Patna High Court Mere Loan Default Doesn’t Justify Look Out Circular Without Criminality: Delhi High Court Rejects Bank of Baroda’s Appeal Consent, Not Calendar, Governs Divorce by Mutual Consent: Delhi High Court Says Separation and Cooling-Off Periods Under Hindu Marriage Act Can Be Waived Termination Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Gauhati High Court Quashes Railway Contract Rescission Right To Speedy Trial Cannot Override Statutory Bar Of NDPS Act: J&K High Court Denies Bail For Commercial Drug Offence Despite 3.5 Years Custody Inheritance Isn’t Lost in Whispered Settlements: Kerala High Court Says Oral Family Claims Can’t Defeat Sisters’ Equal Share Suit Barred by Law Must Be Dismissed at Threshold – No Evidence Needed When Limitation is Clear from the Plaint Itself: Madhya Pradesh High Court Admission That Plaintiff’s Gate Opens onto Disputed Land Clinches Case — No Ownership Proven, Common Passage Must Be Preserved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Axis Bank Must Refund ₹8.20 Crores Withdrawn in Violation of Trial Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Reasserts Judicial Supremacy Permissive Possession Is Not Adverse Possession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Overturns Ownership Claim Over Agricultural Land Registered Sale Deeds Carry Presumption of Ownership; Benami Plea Unsustainable Without Cogent Proof: Madras High Court Grants Partition Eligibility Criteria Must Have Rational Nexus With Objective: Orissa High Court Upholds ₹9 Crore Turnover Requirement In Hospital Diet Tender Mere Multiplicity of Ailments Is Not Ground for Bail Under UAPA: J&K High Court Dismisses Medical Bail Plea of Mian Abdul Qayoom Executing Court Cannot Direct Third Parties to Enforce Arbitral Orders Beyond Their Legal Limits: Delhi High Court Sets Aside CoA Order Against Jamia Hamdard Administrative Officer Can’t Question Validity of Registered Adoption Deed: Allahabad High Court Quashes Rejection of Compassionate Appointment Delay of Over Two Months in Eyewitness Disclosure is Inexplicable and Erodes the Core of the Prosecution’s Case: Bombay High Court Acquits Two Men Convicted of Murder Litigants Must Not Suffer for Clerical Errors Committed by the Court: Bombay High Court Allows Delayed Defence in Sibling Defamation Suit Courts Cannot Conduct a Mini-Trial at Cognizance Stage—Delhi High Court Upholds Summoning in SC/ST Act, IPC Case Involving Police Officer Liberty Cannot Override the Horrors of Lynching: Bombay High Court Denies Bail in Palghar Mob Killing Case Exorbitant Damages Without Proof Are Unsustainable: Madhya Pradesh High Court Strikes Down ₹3.84 Lakh Monthly Damage Order Against Industrial Occupant Specialization Cannot Be Used as a Tool for Harassment: Allahabad High Court Quashes Mid-Term Transfer of Law Officer for Violating Bank's Transfer Policy Delay in Passing Arbitral Award Not Sufficient to Invalidate It Unless Prejudice Is Proven: Bombay High Court Upholds ₹43 Crore Arbitral Award Against Director-Guarantor Builder Disputes Can't Be Dressed as Criminal Offences to Seek FIRs: Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Seeking CBI Probe Against NBCC Mere Plea of Oral Partition Not Sufficient Without Corroborative Evidence: Karnataka High Court Plaintiff Cannot Claim 2/3 Share Without Proving Settlement or Joining All Co-Heirs: Madras High Court Manipulation of Public Issue, Ante-Dated Stock-Invests by Chartered Accountant Unbecoming of the Profession: Delhi High Court Suspends ICAI Member for One Year Allegations Show Continuing Offence— MP High Court Declines to Quash FIR Against NRI Husband, In-Laws Accused of Dowry Demands and Cruelty

Right to Self-Defence Must Be Balanced With Proportionality – Conviction Upheld – Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking judgment, the Bombay High Court has emphasized the importance of proportionality when asserting the right to self-defence. The ruling, which stemmed from a case involving a dispute between two parties that turned violent, reaffirms the principles governing self-defence and sheds light on the application of criminal law.

In its observations, the court highlighted that the right to self-defence, though fundamental, must be exercised with restraint and a sense of proportion. The judgment emphasized that violence used in self-defence should not exceed what is necessary to protect oneself or others from harm.

"…the means and the force a threatened person adopts at the spur of the moment to ward off the danger and to save himself or his property cannot be weighed in golden scales. Nonetheless, the exercise of the right of private defence can never be vindictive or malicious," the Bombay High Court stated, emphasizing the need for a balanced response to a threat.

The case involved an altercation between two parties, where one party claimed they were defending themselves and their family. The accused had invoked the right to self-defense, asserting that they were in immediate danger during the confrontation.

In its judgment, the court noted that while the right to self-defence is essential, it does not authorize undue or excessive violence. The court cautioned against the use of disproportionate force in self-defence, emphasizing that the response should match the threat faced.

To determine whether the right to self-defence applies, the court considered various factors, including the suddenness of the confrontation and whether both parties were involved in mutual provocation.

"…the right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger not of self-creation. Necessity must be present, real or apparent," the judgment stated.

Bombay High Court held  that, in this case, the accused had exceeded the limits of self-defence, resulting in culpable homicide. The judgment serves as a significant legal precedent, clarifying the boundaries of self-defence in cases where violence erupts in response to threats.

Date of Decision: 13 September 2023

Manohar  VS The State of Maharashtra  

Latest Legal News