EASYAmity University, Noida Law Admissions 2025
ApplyAdmissions open for B.A. LL.B (Hons) , B.A. LL.B , BBA LL.B.(Hons) , B.Com.LL.B. (Hons.)
Private Defence for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ
Edited By admin | Updated on Sep 25, 2023 25:47 PM | #CLAT
Quick Facts
-
11 Questions around this concept.
Solve by difficulty
Read the following passage and answer the question.
The right of private defence of people is recognized in all free, civilised, and democratic societies within certain reasonable limits. Those limits are dictated in two considerations:
Every member of society can claim this right- That the state takes responsibility for the maintenance of law and order-This right of private defence is preventive and not punitive.
Supreme Court said that the right of private defence is a defensive right surrounded by the law and is available only when the person is able to justify his circumstances. This right is available against an offence and therefore, where an act is done in the exercise of the right of private defence, such an act cannot go in favour of the aggressor. The legal position which has been crystallised from a large number of cases is that the law does not require a citizen, however law-abiding he may be, to behave like a rank coward on any occasion. This principle has been enunciated in Mahandi v. Emperor. In Gotipulla Venkatasiva Subbrayanam & Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Another (1970) 1 SCC 235, this court held that "the right to private defence is a very valuable right and it has been recognized in all civilized and democratic societies within certain reasonable limits.
The extent to which the right may be exercised. - The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. The extent to which the right may be exercised. - The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. The main question that arises for adjudication, in this case, is whether the accused-appellants had the right of private defence and this is the case of exceeding the right of private defence meaning thereby, inflicting more harm than it was necessary for the purpose of defence.
Question :
Jai, a forest officer having his residence inside the protected zone, fenced his quarter with electric wire as a protective measure against wild animals. One fellow officer, unaware of the fact, got electrocuted and suffered severe injuries. Decide on the liability of Jai.
Read the following passage and answer the question.
The right of private defence of people is recognized in all free, civilised, and democratic societies within certain reasonable limits. Those limits are dictated in two considerations:
Every member of society can claim this right- That the state takes responsibility for the maintenance of law and order-This right of private defence is preventive and not punitive.
Supreme Court said that the right of private defence is a defensive right surrounded by the law and is available only when the person is able to justify his circumstances. This right is available against an offence and therefore, where an act is done in the exercise of the right of private defence, such an act cannot go in favour of the aggressor. The legal position which has been crystallised from a large number of cases is that the law does not require a citizen, however law-abiding he may be, to behave like a rank coward on any occasion. This principle has been enunciated in Mahandi v. Emperor. In Gotipulla Venkatasiva Subbrayanam & Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Another (1970) 1 SCC 235, this court held that "the right to private defence is a very valuable right and it has been recognized in all civilized and democratic societies within certain reasonable limits.
The extent to which the right may be exercised. - The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. The extent to which the right may be exercised. - The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. The main question that arises for adjudication, in this case, is whether the accused-appellants had the right of private defence and this is the case of exceeding the right of private defence meaning thereby, inflicting more harm than it was necessary for the purpose of defence.
Question :
Murti saw some men harassing Yamuna in an empty boggy. Murti while trying to save Yamuna caught hold of one minor boy and beat the guy badly. Decide.
Read the following passage and answer the question.
The right of private defence of people is recognized in all free, civilised, and democratic societies within certain reasonable limits. Those limits are dictated in two considerations:
Every member of society can claim this right- That the state takes responsibility for the maintenance of law and order-This right of private defence is preventive and not punitive.
Supreme Court said that the right of private defence is a defensive right surrounded by the law and is available only when the person is able to justify his circumstances. This right is available against an offence and therefore, where an act is done in the exercise of the right of private defence, such an act cannot go in favour of the aggressor. The legal position which has been crystallised from a large number of cases is that the law does not require a citizen, however law-abiding he may be, to behave like a rank coward on any occasion. This principle has been enunciated in Mahandi v. Emperor. In Gotipulla Venkatasiva Subbrayanam & Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Another (1970) 1 SCC 235, this court held that "the right to private defence is a very valuable right and it has been recognized in all civilized and democratic societies within certain reasonable limits.
The extent to which the right may be exercised. - The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. The extent to which the right may be exercised. - The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. The main question that arises for adjudication, in this case, is whether the accused-appellants had the right of private defence and this is the case of exceeding the right of private defence meaning thereby, inflicting more harm than it was necessary for the purpose of defence.
Question :
In the passage what is the reason given to justify the defence of private defence?
Read the given passage and answer the following question
The right of private defence of people is recognized in all free, civilised, and democratic societies within certain reasonable limits. Those limits are dictated in two considerations:
Every member of society can claim this right- That the state takes responsibility for the maintenance of law and order-This right of private defence is preventive and not punitive.
Supreme Court said that the right of private defence is a defensive right surrounded by the law and is available only when the person is able to justify his circumstances. This right is available against an offence and therefore, where an act is done in the exercise of the right of private defence, such an act cannot go in favour of the aggressor. The legal position which has been crystallized from a large number of cases is that the law does not require a citizen, however law-abiding he may be, to behave like a rank coward on any occasion. This principle has been enunciated in Mahandi v. Emperor. In Gotipulla Venkatasiva Subbrayanam & Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Another (1970) 1 SCC 235, this court held that "the right to private defence is a very valuable right and it has been recognized in all civilized and democratic societies within certain reasonable limits. The extent to which the right may be exercised. - The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. The extent to which the right may be exercised. - The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. The main question that arises for adjudication, in this case, is whether the accused-appellants had the right of private defence and this is the case of exceeding the right of private defence meaning thereby, inflicting more harm than it was necessary for the purpose of defence.
Question:
Jai, a forest officer having his residence inside the protected zone fenced his quarter with electric wire as a protective measure against wild animals. One fellow officer unaware of the fact got electrocuted and suffers severe injuries. Decide on the liability of Jai.
Read the given passage and answer the following question
The right of private defence of people is recognized in all free, civilised, and democratic societies within certain reasonable limits. Those limits are dictated in two considerations:
Every member of society can claim this right- That the state takes responsibility for the maintenance of law and order-This right of private defence is preventive and not punitive.
Supreme Court said that the right of private defence is a defensive right surrounded by the law and is available only when the person is able to justify his circumstances. This right is available against an offence and therefore, where an act is done in the exercise of the right of private defence, such an act cannot go in favour of the aggressor. The legal position which has been crystallized from a large number of cases is that the law does not require a citizen, however law-abiding he may be, to behave like a rank coward on any occasion. This principle has been enunciated in Mahandi v. Emperor. In Gotipulla Venkatasiva Subbrayanam & Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Another (1970) 1 SCC 235, this court held that "the right to private defence is a very valuable right and it has been recognized in all civilized and democratic societies within certain reasonable limits. The extent to which the right may be exercised. - The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. The extent to which the right may be exercised. - The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. The main question that arises for adjudication, in this case, is whether the accused-appellants had the right of private defence and this is the case of exceeding the right of private defence meaning thereby, inflicting more harm than it was necessary for the purpose of defence.
Question:
Murti saw some men harassing Yamuna in an empty boggy. Murti while trying to save Yamuna caught hold of one minor boy and beat the guy badly. Decide
Concepts Covered - 1
Private Defence
Introduction
- Private Defence is a legal concept that allows individuals to protect themselves, their property, or others from imminent harm or unlawful aggression.
- It's a fundamental right recognized in criminal law, including the Indian legal framework.
1. Elements of Private Defence:
- Imminent Threat: Private Defence can only be invoked when there is an immediate and imminent threat of harm or aggression. It doesn't apply to past events or potential future threats.
- Reasonable Force: The force used in private defence should be reasonable and proportionate to the threat. Excessive force, beyond what is necessary to repel the danger, may not be justified.
- No Duty to Retreat: In some cases, individuals are not required to retreat or avoid the threat. They can stand their ground and defend themselves. However, this varies by jurisdiction and the specific circumstances.
2. Types of Private Defence:
- Self-Defence: This is the most common form of private defence, where an individual defends themselves against an immediate physical attack or threat. For instance, using physical force to fend off an assailant during a mugging.
- Defence of Others: Private Defence can also be invoked to protect others from harm. If a person witnesses someone else being attacked or threatened, they may use reasonable force to intervene and protect the victim.
- Defence of Property: In some cases, individuals can use force to protect their property from theft or damage. However, the force used should be proportionate to the threat and may vary depending on the jurisdiction.
3. Illustrative Example:
- Let's consider a scenario: A person is walking home at night when an unknown individual approaches them with a knife and attempts to rob them. In this situation, the intended victim has the right to use reasonable force to protect themselves. They may use physical force to disarm or fend off the attacker in self-defence.
4. Case Law Illustrating Private Defence: Ratanlal and Dhirajlal v. State of Rajasthan (1979)
- Background
- The case of Ratanlal and Dhirajlal v. State of Rajasthan involved two accused, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, who were charged with murder and causing grievous hurt.
- The incident occurred when the accused were attacked by a group of people, and they retaliated, resulting in injuries and deaths among the attackers.
- Legal Issue
- The primary legal issue in this case was whether the accused could claim the right to Private Defence and whether their actions were justified in self-defence.
- Court's Decision and Reasoning
- The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, upheld the right to Private Defence for the accused and ruled that their actions were justified.
- The court reasoned that the accused had been subjected to a violent and unprovoked attack by the group of people. Fearing for their lives, they used reasonable force to protect themselves.
- The court emphasized that Private Defence is a fundamental right recognized by law to safeguard the lives and safety of individuals.
- Significance
- The Ratanlal and Dhirajlal case is significant as it reinforces the importance of the right to Private Defence in Indian law.
- It establishes that individuals have the legal right to protect themselves when faced with imminent threats of violence or harm.
- Key Takeaways
- This case emphasizes that individuals are not obligated to be passive victims when they are subjected to violent attacks or threats. They have the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves.
- It underscores the principle that the right to Private Defence should be recognized and upheld, provided that the force used is proportionate to the threat and the situation.
- The case sets a precedent for the legal recognition of Private Defence as a crucial element of individual safety and protection under Indian law.
5. Practical Application:
- Private Defence is not a blanket justification for violence. It must meet the criteria of imminent threat, reasonable force, and, in some cases, the absence of a duty to retreat.
- The concept encourages individuals to act reasonably in self-preservation or protection of others without resorting to excessive force.
"Stay in the loop. Receive exam news, study resources, and expert advice!"
Get Answer to all your questions
CLAT Articles
Back to top