State of UP v.

Ram Swarup
(1974) 4 SCC 764

SUBMITTED BY-
Chiranjiv Jain
19213210
BBA LLB (H)

MISSION VISION CORE VALUES

CHRIST is a nurturing ground for an individual’s Excellence and Service Faith in God | Moral Uprightness
holistic development to make effective contribution Love of Fellow Beings
to the society in a dynamic environment
 CHRIST
Deemed to be University

INTRODUCTION
The above titled case is a classic case on the issue
of Right of Private Defense as provided to a
person under Sections 99 and 100 of Indian
Penal Code. The Supreme Court in its decisions
has elaborated as to what constitutes the Right of
Private Defense.

Excellence and Service

 CHRIST
Deemed to be University

Section 99 of IPC
Acts against which there is no right of private defence
Description
There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause
the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by
a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act
may not be strictly justifiable by law.
There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse
to protection of the public authorities.
Extent to which the right may be exercised — The right of private defence in no
case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the
purpose of defence.

Excellence and Service

 CHRIST
Deemed to be University

Section 99 of IPC
Explanation
Through this section, we can understand that this section lays down certain
principles which must be kept in mind for the defense.
The first part of the section talks about that the person is not deprived of the rights
of private defense for an offence by a public servant.
The second part of the section talks about the same right of private defense who
acts under the direction of public servant, in this section it has to be proven that
there was a good faith behind the action of any act.
The third part of the section talks about the important postulate of the right to
private defense does not exist in such cases where there had a time to resolute the
protection of the public authorities.

Excellence and Service

 CHRIST
Deemed to be University

Section 100 of IPC

Section 100 IPC provides for the conditions and extends the scope of the right
of private defence.
Sec 100 IPC is defined under the Code as, “The right of private defence of the
body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to
the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the
offence which occasions the exercise of the rights is of any of the descriptions
hereinafter enumerated, namely:-
First- Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will
otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
Secondly- Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that
grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault

Excellence and Service

 CHRIST
Deemed to be University

Section 100 of IPC

Thirdly- An assault with the intention of committing rape;
Fourthly- An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;
Fifthly- An assault with the intention of Kidnapping or abducting;
Sixthly- An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person,
under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he
will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.
Seventhly- An act of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to throw
or administer acid which may reasonably cause the apprehension that
grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such act

Excellence and Service

 CHRIST
Deemed to be University

FACTS
A. On 7th June, 1970 at about 7 a.m. one Ganga Ram went to the market to
purchase a basket of melons in subzi mandi Badauin, Uttar Pradesh. A person
called Sahib Datta Mal alias Munimji who was the melons vendor refused to
sell it saying that it was already marked for another customer. This led to the
exchange of hot words and Munimji asserting his authority said that he was the
thekedar of the market and his words were final. Ganga Ram could not take the
challenge and left in a huff.
B. An hour later Ganga Ram along with his three sons Ram Swarup, Somi and
Subhash went back to the market. Ganga Ram had a knife, Ram Swarup was
carrying a gun and two others carried lathis. They advanced aggressively to the
gaddi of Munimji who, taken by surprise rushed to take shelter in the
neighboring kothi. But before he could retreat Ram Swarup shot him dead at
point blank range.

Excellence and Service

 CHRIST
Deemed to be University

FACTS
C. All the four accomplices were tried under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code for murder of Munimji. Ram Swarup was convicted for the murder and was
sentenced to Death whereas Ganga Ram was sentenced to life imprisonment by
the sessions Court. However, Somi and Subhash were acquitted.
D. The High Court of Allahabad acquitted Ganga Ram and Ram Swarup in an
appeal filed by them and dismissed the appeal filed by state against the acquittal
of Somi and Subhash.
E. The defense taken by the accused was that when at 8 a.m they reached the
market, there was a scuffle between the deceased Munimji and Ganga Ram, and
Ganga Ram was being assaulted by lathis by the servants of the deceased and
seeing his father’s life in danger Ram Swarup fired shots from the gun he was
carrying in right of private defense.

Excellence and Service

 CHRIST
Deemed to be University

ISSUES RAISED
I. What constitutes the right of private defense?
II. Whether the accused herein have any right of private
defense in the given set of circumstances?
III.Whether the acquittal of Ram Swaroop and Ganga
Ram by the Hon’ble High Court is Lawful?

Excellence and Service

 CHRIST
Deemed to be University

JUDGEMENT
1. The Supreme Court held that right of private defense is a right of defense,
not retribution. It is available in face of imminent peril to those who act in
good faith and in no case can the right be conceded to a person who stage-
manages a situation wherein the right can be used as a shield to justify an act
of aggression. If a person goes with a gun to kill someone , the intended
victim is entitled to act in self-defense and if he so acts, there is no right in
the former to kill him in order to prevent him from acting in self-defense.
2. The Indian Penal Code does not provide right of private defense as a causing
of death, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right is of such a
nature as may, to the extent material, reasonably cause the apprehension that
the death or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of the assault.

Excellence and Service

 CHRIST
Deemed to be University

JUDGEMENT
3. The Court held that in the present case the circumstances were not such that
Ram Swarup would have been compelled to kill the deceased by firing. The mere
possibility of the scuffle, cannot justify the killing of the deceased. Therefore, the
plea of Right of private defense taken by Ram Swarup was dismissed.
4. The High Court was justified in acquitting Ganga Ram of the charge under
Section 307, Indian Penal Code, regarding the knife-attack on Nanak Chand.
Nanak Chand received no injury at all and the story that the knife-blow missed
Nanak Chand but caused a cut on his kurta and Bandi seems incredible. The High
Court examined these clothes but found no cut marks thereon. Tears there were
on the Kurta and Bandi but it is their customary privilege to be torn. With that,
the conviction and sentence under the Section 29 (b) Arms Act,1959 for
possession of the knife had to fall.

Excellence and Service

 CHRIST
Deemed to be University

JUDGEMENT
5. There is no substance in the charge against Ganga
Ram under Section 29 (b) of the Arms Act,1959 because
he cannot be said to have delivered his licensed gun to
Ram Swarup. The better view is that Ram Swarup took
it.

Excellence and Service

 CHRIST
Deemed to be University

CONCLUSION
The Right of Private Defence does constitute a general exception to
the offences listed in the Indian Penal Code, however, it has its
limitations. There is an extent to which the right can be exercised. In
this case the Supreme Court indeed behaved as a ‘court of last resort’.
After three judgements by three courts, the court with the highest
authority served justice.
The Supreme Court well explained how it is a very valuable right. It has
a social purpose. It should not be narrowly construed. It necessitates the
occasions for the exercise of this right as an effective means of
protection against wrong doers. This case is a landmark case and acts as
a precedent.

Excellence and Service

 CHRIST
Deemed to be University

THANK YOU

Excellence and Service