Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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