‘M’, a male of 25 years of age performs sexual intercourse with ‘W’, an unmarried woman of 20 years of age with her consent. While they were in a compromising position, the father of ‘W’ sees them. Out…….

Question: ‘M’, a male of 25 years of age performs sexual intercourse with ‘W’, an unmarried woman of 20 years of age with her consent. While they were in a compromising position, the father of ‘W’ sees them. Out of anger, ‘F’ started beating both of them namely, ‘M’ and his daughter ‘W’.

By such beating ‘F’ voluntarily caused grievous hurt to ‘M’ and ‘W’. ‘F’ was prosecuted by ‘M’. On such prosecution, ‘F’ takes the plea that he is not guilty of any offence as he beat ‘M’, who was committing an offence, in the exercise of his right of private defence. Is the plea of ‘F’ sustainable at law? Give reasons and also refer to judicial precedent, if any, on the point. [WBJS 1975]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [‘M’, a male of 25 years of age performs sexual intercourse with ‘W’, an unmarried woman of 20 years of age with her consent….]

Answer

The act of performing sexual intercourse by M with the consent of W does not constitute an offence under the IPC, as W is unmarried and above the age of 16 years.

In Ganauri Lal’s case, (1889) 16 Cal 206 (218), the Calcutta HC held that the right of private defence cannot be exercised against an act that is not an offence under the IPC.

In the present case, F has no right of private defence, due to the following reasons:-

1. The act of M (performing sexual intercourse with W with her consent) is not an offence. It would have been an offence of ‘rape’ if done without the consent of W or the age of W were under 16 years as per section 375 requirements and it would have been an offence of adultery if W were married as per section 497, IPC.
2. From the act of M, there was no apprehension of danger of any harm to the body of F as section 102 demands

Thus, on the basis of the above discussion, it is amply clear that the plea of F is not sustainable at law, as he has no right of private defence because the act of M or W does not constitute any offence. Moreover, F had no apprehension of danger to his body from the act of M or W.

---

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