INSTITUTE OF LAW

NIRMA UNIVERSITY

Criminal Litigation – 1

CE- II

Case Analysis

Submitted To: Mr. Alaukik Srivastava

Submitted By: RAGHAV GUPTA(22bal106)

 CASE ANALYSIS

VISHWANATH V. STATE OF U.P

FACTS:

In the case before the Supreme Court, the appellant Vishwanath was involved in a
dispute with the late Gopal regarding Gopal's wife, who happened to be
Vishwanath's sister. Gopal suspected his wife of having an affair and wanted to
take her away from his in-laws' house. On the evening of the event, there was a
clash between Gopal and Vishwanath. Gopal tried to take his wife away from his
in-laws' house, but the verbal argument escalated. During the argument,
Vishwanath stabbed Gopal with a knife in the presence of his father Badri,
resulting in his death. Initially, the sessions judge acquitted both Vishwanath and
Badri, arguing that Vishwanath had acted in self-defense to protect his sister. The
judge said that Vishwanath's actions were in self-defense because he perceived an
imminent threat to his sister. However, the Allahabad High Court overturned
Vishwanath's acquittal. The High Court held that the right to private defense does
not extend to voluntary death and emphasized that Vishwanath had exceeded that
right. The decision of the Court of Appeal was influenced by the earlier case of
Emperor v. Ram Saiya and overturned Vishwanath's acquittal.
In summary, the Supreme Court case was about Vishwanath's use of force against
Gopal in defense of his sister. The sessions judge initially acquitted Vishwanath,
finding that he had acted in self-defence. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed,
saying that Vishwanath's actions exceeded the permissible limits of the right of
private defence, which later led to a Supreme Court review.
ISSUE:
i) Whether the appellant has exceeded the right to private defense of person?

JUDGEMENT BY THE SUPREME COURT:

In the case pending before the Supreme Court, the appellant Vishwanath had a
dispute with his sister Gopal regarding Gopal's wife, who was Vishwanath's sister.
Gopal suspected his wife of infidelity and tried to take her away from the family.
One night a heated argument broke out between Gopal and Vishwanath. Gopal
tried to take his wife away from his in-laws which led to a verbal altercation. In the
middle of an argument, Vishwanath along with his father Badri stabbed Gopal,
leading to his death. Initially, the sessions judge acquitted both Vishwanath and
Badri, arguing that Vishwanath had acted in self-defense to protect his sister. The
judge said that Vishwanath's actions fell within the scope of self-defense as he
perceived an imminent threat to his sister. However, the Allahabad High Court
overturned Vishwanath's acquittal. The High Court held that the right to private
defense does not extend to intentional causing of death and emphasized that
Vishwanath exceeded that right. The decision of the Court of Appeal was
influenced by the earlier case of Emperor v. Ram Saiya, which led to Vishwanath's
acquittal being overturned.
Overall, the Supreme Court case focused on Vishwanathi's use of force against
Gopal to protect his sister. Initially acquitted, Vishwanath was later found guilty by
a higher court, arguing that his actions exceeded the reasonable limits of the right
of self-defense. That disagreement led to the hearing of the matter in the Supreme
Court.
ARGUMENTS:
Defense arguments:

Sister's Defense: The defense's main argument would be that Vishwanath acted
out of deep concern for his sister's safety. His purpose was not to kill, but to
protect her from the powerful abduction of her husband. Under Section 100,
Section 5 of the Indian Penal Code, the right to private defense extends to causing
death in cases of assault with intent to rob or rob. Vishwanath sensed this imminent
threat and reacted to protect his sister.
Single Strike: It is important to emphasize that Vishwanath only made one strike
in the heat of the moment. This single action shows recklessness and suggests that
he did not intend to cause fatal harm. The unfortunate outcome was due to the
nature of the situation, not a calculated attempt to cause death.
Limited resources: Vishwanath used an ordinary pocket knife, a common means
of self-defense. The fact that he did not use excessive force, such as a deadly
weapon, shows that his intention was not to cause serious harm, but to frighten
Gopal and protect his sister.
Arguments of the prosecutor:

Excessive Force: The prosecution can argue that Vishwanath's use of the knife,
even if it is ordinary, is excessive force. They may argue that he could have used
less lethal means to protect his sister, such as physically restraining Gopal or
asking others for help, instead of using a potentially lethal weapon.
Absence of Imminent Threat: The prosecutor may question the imminence of the
threat. They could argue that there was no clear and immediate danger to the life of
Vishwanath's sister when she intervened. In this case, the use of lethal force would
not be justified.
Alternative courses of action: The prosecution could present alternative scenarios
in which Vishwanath could have taken non-lethal actions, such as calling the
police or trying to verbally defuse the situation. The use of the knife immediately
escalated the confrontation and led to a tragic outcome.

ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS AND PERSONAL OPINION:

In Vishwanath v. The State faced a complex situation in the Supreme Court
involving right to private defence, kidnapping and the tragic death of Gopal. The
central question revolved around whether the appellant Vishwanath exceeded the
permissible limits of the right of private defense when he fatally stabbed his
sister's husband, Gopal.
Application of Section 100:
 The court carefully analyzed Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code, particularly
Section 5, which provides for the right to private defense in cases of robbery or
assault with intent to rob. The court recognized the nuances of the term "robbery"
as defined in Section 362, which includes both coercive and fraudulent incentives.
Crucially, the court emphasized that it is not reasonable to assume that a violently
kidnapped person will stop and assess the kidnapper's intentions. In that case,
Gopal's forceful attempt to grab Vishwanath's sister was an attack invoking
Vishwanath's right of self-defense.
Vishwanath Performance rating:
Vishwanath's answer has been addressed. He used an ordinary pocket knife and
made a single stroke that showed recklessness. The accidental death was due to
special circumstances and not excessive force. On the basis that a single blow with
an ordinary knife, even if fatal, did not cause more damage than was necessary,
Vishwanath's actions fell within the ambit of section 99. Statement of Judgment: I
think that the decision of the Supreme Court is justified. Vishwanath's intention
was not to cause death but to protect his sister from a violent robbery. Gopal's
actions clearly fell within the ambit of assault with intent to rob, thus vindicating
Vishwanath's right to protect his sister. Although the fatal outcome was
unfortunate, it was not the result of excessive force, but the tragic result of
circumstances. Vishwanath's immediate response with one blow, hard and to
protect his sister, is consistent with the principles of private defense. This case
emphasizes upon the delicate balance between the right to self-defense and tragic
consequences. The judgment rightly acknowledges the context and immediacy of
Vishwanath's actions and offers a nuanced perspective on the limits of private self-
defense. It serves as precedent clarifying the application of Section 100 in cases
where prompt action is required to prevent a crime, even if it leads to an
unfortunate consequence.
 DOMINIC VARKEY VS THE STATE OF KERALA

FACTS OF THE CASE:

A deadly altercation between the Varkey brothers, Dominic and George, took place
on March 20, 1967.The prosecution alleges that during their heated argument,
Dominic was stooping to pick up a stone while Dominic was unarmed and George
approached him with a knife. Dominic was stabbed by George after he charged at
him with the knife. Dominic was brought to the hospital, where doctors
pronounced him dead.The trial relied heavily on three witnesses. Sadly, two of
them started fighting and were useless as witnesses.The third witness, Thomas
Mathai, a friend of both brothers and a family attorney, claimed to have witnessed
the argument and that George stabbed Dominic as it got out of hand. Mathai stated
he didn't see George pull out the knife, but he did corroborate that George attacked
Dominic once he saw it.
George asserted his right to self-defense in his defence. He maintained that he truly
feared serious bodily damage or even death due to the history of recurring
arguments between them and Dominic's violent behaviour during the incident. The
trial court accepted George's claim of self-defense, but because there was a
reasonable doubt, it decided to clear him of all charges. George was initially found
not gThe acquittal was later overturned by the High Court, though. Dominic was
recognised as the aggressor by the High Court, but George had overstepped his
right to self-defense, the court ruled. Dominic was unarmed and only bending
down to pick up a stone, so George believed he could have only expected minor
injuries and not death or terrible harm. As a result, George was found guilty under
Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code, and he received a three-year
sentence of solitary confinement.uilty because the court was unable to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the aggressor.
The Supreme Court then heard the matter and conducted a thorough analysis. The
decision of the High Court was rejected by the Supreme Court. It highlighted
George's genuine fear for his life given the situation and Dominic's history of
hostile behaviour. The court found that, given the imminence of the threat posed by
his brother, George's actions constituted a legitimate exercise of self-defense.
Therefore, the Supreme Court cleared George of all charges, emphasising that he
had used his right to self-defense, and he was released after having his bail bond
cancelled.

ISSUES INVOLVED:
1. Should George Varkey, the accused, be able to assert his right to a private
defence under section 99 of the Indian Penal Code?
2. Was there a reasonable suspicion of danger as defined in Section 99 of the
Indian Penal Code Clause 4?

ARGUMENTS:

DEFENDANTS:
The defence team in Dominic Varkey v. State of Kerala relied on the justification
that George was acting in self-defense. He said that, due to his brother's hostile
actions, he had a good basis to fear that his life was in immediate danger.He
claimed that his fear of severe injury or death was real, which supported his self-
defense measures. The defendants also claimed that there were numerous property
issues between them and that Dominic Varkey was the aggressor in the brawl.
Dominic's previous hostile behaviour is sufficient evidence to establish that
George's life was in risk right away, and his actions were therefore
justifiable. .Mathai, the only and sole eyewitness, further testified that he did not
see George pull out the knife and that Dominic was the one who bent down to pick
up the stone in order to injure George. As a result, George should not be held
accountable under section 302 of the IPC and is entitled to a private defence under
section 99 of the IPC.
PROSECUTION:
The prosecution argued that George went beyond his IPC section 99 right to
private defence. Even if Dominic had been the aggressor at first, they contended,
George was not justified in stabbing Dominic because he was unarmed and
appeared to represent no threat that could have killed him.
Additionally, they contended that George's fears were unfounded because
Dominic's conduct could not possibly cause him to suffer severe pain or dieThe
prosecution also established a specific timeline of events in which George was
painted as the aggressor, calling into question the veracity of his claim of self-
defense and arguing that the action was not justified as per clause 4 of section 99
of the IPC and that, as a result, George should be charged with murder in
accordance with section 302.
JUDGMENT:
The court carefully analysed the circumstances that led to the altercation between
the two brothers and later to Dominic Varkey's death in light of the facts and
evidence. The evidence made it evident that Dominic was the one who started the
fight, and George's actions were in response to the immediate threat to his safety
and life. The highest court reaffirmed the three guiding principles for the right to
private defence and upheld the trial court's judgement.The right to private defence
is based on three principles: first, that no more harm may be done than is necessary
for the defence; second, that there must be a reasonable fear that the body may be
in danger as a result of an attempt or threat to commit some crime; and third, that
the right does not begin until there is a reasonable fear. The court determined that
George Varkey's fear of suffering severe harm or dying was real and
understandable in light of Dominic Varkey's urgent and forceful threat. George
Varkey was exonerated by the court because his response was reasonable and
essential to shield him from the danger he faced.

ANALYSIS
I believe the court's decision is reasonable and well-founded. The careful
examination of the right to private defence and the objective evaluation of the
immediate threat the defendant faces highlight a fair application of the law. The
court upheld individual liberty and stressed the importance of a fair and impartial
legal system by acquitting George Varkey on the basis of self-defense. The
credibility of the witnesses, especially Thomas Mathai, was valued by the court.
The assertion that George Varkey was innocent and did not go beyond his right to
private defence .
The Indian Supreme Court gave the issue due consideration and upheld the legal
precepts governing the right to private defence. The court's decision was careful
because it addressed the question of the right to private defence by taking a fair-
minded stance. The scenario was considered in the court's decision, and the case's
facts were highlighted.s made possible in large part thanks to Mathai's testimony in
this case.This shows the court's dedication to protecting justice by carefully
examining the facts and eyewitness testimony, ensuring a fair trial for the accused.
One of the most important components of this case was determining who was the
aggressor. The court carefully considered the circumstances that took place,
highlighting the genuine and imminent threat George faced, which supported his
claim of self-defense and designated Dominic as the aggressor. The court
emphasised that the right to private defence under section 99 of the IPC must be
exercised wisely and proportionately without causing more harm than necessary.
The court also emphasised that the apprehension is in the person exercising the
right to self-defense and that the apprehension is to be determined objectively with
reference to events and deeds at that crucial time and in the overall situation of
surrounding circumstances.
The court completely relied on legal principles while giving the judgment which
showcases a consistent application of legal norms. The court came up with three
principals on which right to private defense rests, First, there must be no more
harm done than is required for defence; second, there must be a reasonable
suspicion that the body is in danger due to an attempt or threat of committing some
crime; and third, the right does not begin until there is a reasonable suspicion.The
court's judgement was informed by earlier decisions, guaranteeing uniformity in
the application of legal precedents as it maintained the trial court's verdict after
careful study and pointed out the flaw in the high court's decision.