1: Raghavan Achari v.

State of Kerala, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 719

“No court expects the citizens not to defend themselves particularly when they have already
suffered grievous injuries.”

2: Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR (2010) SC 1212: 2010 CrLJ 1393

A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defence into operation, it is
not necessary that there should be an actual commission of the offence in order to give rise to
the right of private defence.
It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault/ attack to regulate his defence step by step
with any precision.
The accused need not to prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable
doubt.
A person who is an impending danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self-
defence cause any injury or harm even extending to death on his attacker either when the
assault is attempted or directly threatened.

3: State of U.P. vs. Ram Swaroop, AIR 1974 SC 1570: 1974 CrLJ 1035

Hon’ble court held that the right of private defence provided under Indian penal code is very
narrow right and can be taken advantage of only when the circumstances fully justifies the
exercise of such right.

4: Section 351 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Assault)

Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such
gestures or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that
gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an
assault.
Mere threat that criminal force might be used against one is assault.
(The word reasonable apprehension is not as such defined in criminal law. It differs
from case to case; generally, court determines if there is reasonable apprehension or not
after looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, kind of weapon used by the
aggressor to threaten the victim and also that the harm caused by the victim was
necessary or he exceeded his right of private defence.)

5: In Deo Ishwar Shinde vs. State to Maharashtra 2002, CrLJ 1026 at p. 1031 (Bom.), it
was held that accused would be justified in eyes of law if in self-defence or to protect
himself, accused takes the knife out of the possession of the deceased and in that state of
mind inflicts multiple injuries on the deceased to avail further attack by the deceased. Thus,
the accused was entitled to right of private defence of body so as to cause death.

6: Vidhya Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 1857, 1971 CriLJ 1296,
(1971) 3 SCC 244
The person facing a reasonable apprehension of threat to himself cannot be probable to
modulate his defenses tier by tier, similar to a man in ordinary times or under normal
circumstances.
Whether a person claiming the right of private defense of the body had any reasonable
apprehension of danger, depends on the state of his mind and also the situation in which he
had been placed at the relevant time and no one can say what was passing in his mind at that
time. It is probable that an accused might mistakenly believe that there is an imminent danger
to his own life or the life of another person which makes him act in a certain manner. In such
cases, an accused would be entitled to be adjudicated on the pretext of the facts he truly
believed, and hence would be permitted to use a degree of force that was reasonable in the
context of such apprehension.

7: Buta Singh vs The State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 1316, 1991 CriLJ 1464, 1991 (1)
SCALE 597, (1991) 2 SCC 612
A person who is apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh on golden scales, in the
spur of the moment and in the heat of circumstances, the number of injuries required to
disarm the assailants .
In moments of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium, it is often difficult to expect the
parties to preserve composure and use exactly only so much force in retaliation
commensurate with the danger apprehended to him.

8: Mahabir Choudhary v State of Bihar (1996) 5 SCC 107, AIR 1996 SC 1998;
The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable
doubt.
9: Arjun v State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 2181, (2012) 5 SCC 530
Degree of proof however is not beyond reasonable doubt but mere preponderance of
probability.

10: Krishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2006 SC 3037, (2006) 11 SCC 304
An accused taking the plea of the right of private defence is not required to call evidence; he
can establish his plea by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence
itself.

11: Buta Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1991 SC 1316, (1991) 2 SCC 612
Causing death to repel attack does not amount to exceeding of right of defence.

12: Sekar v State of Rajasthan 2003 SCC (Cri) 16: 2003 Cr LJ 53

A plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and speculation. While
considering whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, it is not relevant
whether he may have a chance to inflict severe and mortal injury on the aggressor. In order to
find whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, the entire incident must
be examined with care and viewed in its proper setting.

13: Wassan Singh V State of Punjab (1996) 1 SCC 458

Situations have to be judged from the subjective point of view of the accused concerned in
the surrounding excitement and confusion of the moment, confronted with a situation of peril
and not by any microscopic and pedantic scrutiny.

14: In the case of Gurdev Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1996 cr lj 1270, the accused was
assaulted by the deceased twice before and injured him. In this case, the court held that the
right to private defence was not exceeded.