MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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