A is likely to beat B. B in the exercise of his right of private defence, catches hold of A so that A could not beat him. By such action of B, A is excited to sudden and violent passion and kills B. What offence, if any, was committed?

Question: A is likely to beat B. B in the exercise of his right of private defence catches hold of A so that A could not beat him. By such action of B, A is excited to sudden and violent passion and kills B. What offence, if any, was committed? [U.P. A.P.O. (A.P.P.) Exam, 1994.]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A is likely to beat B. B in the exercise of his right of private defence catches hold of A so that A could not beat him. By such action of B, A is excited to sudden and violent passion and kills B. What offence, if any, was committed?]

Answer

The idea of private defence laid down under section 96, IPC is based on the natural instinct of self-preservation. One of the most essential propositions in connection with the right of private defence is that the right is not available to the initial aggressor.

Further, the defence of grave and sudden provocation as used as an exception to section 300 of the code which provides that, Culpable homicide will not be murder, if, the offender, on account of the grave and sudden provocation, is deprived of his power of self-control and causes the death of a person. The person, whose death is caused, may be the person who gave the provocation or any other person by mistake or accident.

The exception is itself subject to three exceptions. Two relevant to the present facts are:

(1) The provocation should not have been sought voluntarily by the offender, as an excuse for killing or doing any harm to any person.

(2) The provocation is not a result of anything done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

Therefore, as per the present facts of the case, it is clear that A could not take the defence of grave and sudden provocation because:

1. A was the initial aggressor in the case
2. B was acting in his right to private defence against A who was likely to beat B
3. B only caught hold of A to prevent him from beating him, so it was a lawful exercise of B’s right of private defence

Hence, A has committed culpable homicide amounting to murder under section 300, IPC.

In Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 9 SCC 205] the accused, accompanied by others, entered into the hut of the deceased. Apprehending danger to his life, the deceased fired at one of the companions of the accused and thereby caused his death. The accused then attacked the deceased with an axe on his head and killed him. During the trial, he pleaded that the death of his companion caused grave and sudden provocation to him. The Supreme Court refused to accept the plea as the accused solicited the provocation. A killing under provocation sought by the accused cannot be covered by the exception.

---

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