A beats his neighbour B and by such beating, he voluntarily causes hurt to B. When the beating of B by A was over and A was leaving the place, B picks a heavy stone and throws upon A. The stone hits A’s head which causes hurt to him. A prosecutes B for ‘voluntarily causing hurt’ punishable under Section 323, I.P.C……

Question: A beats his neighbour B and by such beating, he voluntarily causes hurt to B. When the beating of B by A was over and A was leaving the place, B picks a heavy stone and throws upon A. The stone hits A’s head which causes hurt to him. A prosecutes B for ‘voluntarily causing hurt’ punishable under Section 323, I.P.C.

On behalf of B, it was argued in his defence that he is not guilty of ‘Voluntarily causing hurt’ and he did so in the exercise of his ‘right of private defence’, as A had also voluntarily caused hurt to him. Is B liable to be acquitted on the ground of argument advanced on his behalf? Give reasons and also mention the relevant provision, if any, under I.P.C.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A beats his neighbour B and by such beating, he voluntarily causes hurt to B. Give reasons and also mention the relevant provision, if any, under I.P.C.]

Answer

Section 321 deals with the provision of voluntarily causing hurt and states that whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said: “voluntarily to cause hurt”.

Section 102, IPC prescribes the commencement and the duration of the right of private defence of the body which commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence, though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.

In-state of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramtesh, (2005) 9 SCC 705, the court held that every person has a right to defend his own body and the body of another person against any offence affecting the human body. The right of self-defense commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension arises and it is co-terminus with the duration of such apprehension. Again, it is a defensive and not retributive right and can be exercised only in those cases where there is no time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.

Further, in Hari Meghji v. State of Gujarat, 1983, the Supreme Court held that as the accused continued to assault the deceased after had fallen down and rendered harmless, the plea of private defence was not available to him.

Therefore, the act of B was not justifiable to hit A with a heavy stone because A after beating him was already leaving the place in which B had sufficient time to inform the public authorities and take recourse of police to act against the commission of A, causing voluntary hurt to B. Hence, B cannot take the defense of rights of private defence against A in the present case when he had sufficient means and time to inform the police.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions