news details |
|
|
| Self defence is a basic human spirit, it extends to killing the attacker in self defence. | | | Nikhil Gupta | 9/21/2011 8:19:45 PM |
| Consider a hypothetical condition where some shameless cowards in a group barge in someone's house and threathen a person in his house ! In that situation what a person needs to do or what a person can do ? Should he call police that may or may not reach on time , should he raise alarm or should he take on those shameless cowards who have come in his house to threathen him ? Or should he take out weapons and shoot the shameless coward attackers ? It is important to note that those who harass or kill little little children or women or old or innocent people are cowards and also those who barge in someone's house to cause injuries are also shameless cowards in my personal and considered view . In such situations what a normal Indian citizen is suppossed to do ? It is a well known fact throughout the world that Self Defence is a basic human spirit and a person is justified to properly defend his life and property and in doing so he may even kill the shameless attackers . None is allowed to cause injuries or abuses to any citizen when there are so many courts of law in India and there is a criminal justice system with very good and independent higher judiciary in India . If any person or any " Body-Corporate " has any grievance against anyone , then there is huge availability of recourse to legal remedies . But if some body-corporate sends goondas or its shameless employees to threathen a person in his house then in my personal view the attacked person standing in his property has every right to shoot and kill those coward attackers.
A similiar case I read in newspapers on 5th feb , 2011 wherein some employees of a private company went to the house of Mr. SURESH GUPTA , an honoured Indian citizen living in Jammu , and tried to threathen him . Mr. Gupta took out his gun and fired in air to scare away the employees of the private company . The neighbours of Mr Gupta after hearing gun shot swung in action and gave sound thrashing to the employees namely sandip sing of rani talab digiana , pradeep kumar and sarbjit sigh of that private company . In such a situation when a group of employees of a body-corporate tried to threathen Mr. Gupta , then he was fully justified to make all efforts for his self defence and he could even shoot and kill those employees who had come in his property . The full details of the case are not known but according to published newspaper report , Mr Gupta had taken a sim card from some company and after paying the last bill had closed that connection . But that company instead of closing the SIM connection sent its employees to threathen an Indian citizen and thus the employees of that company took law in their hands instead of taking legal recourse . If those employees or their company had any grievance against Mr Gupta , then they should have taken recourse to legal remedies . But how can a body-corporate or anyone send its employees in the form of goondas to threathen a citizen of this country ? In my personal view Mr Gupta did very right to take out his weapon and safe guarded his life and property . But its really not understandable why police didn't appreciate his efforts to safe guard his life from those cowards who had come to his house . In a country like America , such action on the part of Mr Gupta would have been highly appreciated because Mr Gupta did what was necessary in such a situation . I must tell here that our constitution has never expected that Indian citizens should run away or act like cowards when attacked . The law and constitution is very clear that in situations like the one mentioned above , Indian citizens should act like warriors and properly defend themselves . If gun was not available with Mr. Gupta , then he should have attacked those employees who had come in his house with whatever weapons he could lay his hands on and such weapons could be knives , daggers , hockey sticks , axes or even iron rods or anything that could protect him . And it would have been better if police had appreciated the efforts of Mr Suresh Gupta who just acted in self defence . It were the employees of some company who instead of taking legal recourse , barged in house and tried to take law in their hands and tried to threathen a citizen of this country .
The rule of private defence is correctly mentioned by Russel on Crime ( 11th edition ,Vol I , page 491 ) . Russel states that " a man is justified in resisting by force anyone who manifestly intends and endeavours by violence or surprise to commit a known felony against either his person , habitation or property ." Russel further mentions that the attacked person may not run but pursue his attcakers till the danger is ended and if in such course the attacked person kills the attackers then such killing is justified . I fully agree with views of Russel . It is very clear that Russel , a known authority on crime and justice , is just reinforcing the basic human spirit of self defence . The Indian law and criminal justice system also reinforce this spirit in Indian citizens to repell the attackers who try to threathen or cause injuries to any Indian citizen . But what if police or any servant of government or servant of public try to threathen common citizens of India ? Then also the law is very clear because it doesn't differentiate between citizens of various occupations etc and anyone who is attacked or threathened has full right for doing all he can in order to to defend himself .
It is a well known fact that our country became free because of huge and very brave sacrifices of freedom warriors like SURYA SEN , ANANDA GUPTA , DEBA GUPTA , GANESH GHOSH , Madam KALPANA D GUPTA , Madam PREETILATA WADDEDAR and a large number of Indians who participated without any fear in the disobedience and quit India movements of Gandhi ji . Thus the freedom of India was obtained by manly spirit of Indian warriors . The constitution of India has tried to inculcate this " manly and warrior spirit " in Indian citizens by enacting various laws in Indian penal code that talk of right to self defence . The Indian Law doesnot require a law-abiding Indian citizen to behave like a coward when confronted with imminent unlawful aggression . The Indian courts have on many occasions observed that " there is nothing more degrading to human spirit than to run away in face of
danger " . The right to private self defence is thus designed to serve a social purpose and needs to be stregthened within prescribed limits .
Sections 96 and 97 of Indian Penal Code ( IPC) very correctly define the law of private self defence . Section 96 of IPC says that " Nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of the right of private defence ." Section 97 of IPC says that " Every person has a right to defend his own body , body of another person also against any threat to human body ." It further states that " Every person has right to defend his property moveable or immoveable against any act which is an offence falling in the definition of theft , robbery , criminal tresspass , mischief or which is an attempt to commit theft , robbery , criminal tresspass or mischief " . Thus these two sections of IPC clearly state that every person has right to private defence of self and property against any unlawful act of anyone or any body-corporate . Section 100 of IPC justifies the killing of the attacker when apprehension of atrocious crime is shown to exist . First clause of section 100 of IPC deals with a situation when the attacked person has genuine apprehension that the attacker or attackers are going to kill and the second clause of same section deals with a situation when the attacked person has genuine apprehension that the attacker or attackers are going to cause grevious hurt . In such situations section 100 of IPC allows the attacked person to kill the attacker or attackers even if the attacker or attackers have not initiated any blow or injury to the attacked . The logical corollary of these clauses of section 100 will be that if attackers commit criminal tresspass like barging in someone's house to cause injuries then the man of the house can take all necessary safeguards like taking out weapons to shoot and even kill the attackers who have barged in his house with criminal intention . I hope the law knowing persons would agree with my above mentioned corollary to first two clauses of section 100 of IPC and this corollary would apply to the case of Mr Suresh Gupta in whose house some employees of a company or body-corporate barged with criminal intentions instead of taking legal recourse of sending legal notices etc . I think Mr Gupta is a gentleman who only shot in air to scare away the employees of company but the right to self defence is very clear in the sections 96 , 97 and 100 of IPC as explained above . As the employees of company instead of taking legal recourse had come in a group may be with some criminal intention , hypotheticaly Mr Gupta had every right to defend himself and could even shoot those employees as per relevant sections of penal code .
Benthem in his celebrated book " Principles of Penal Laws " has mentioned that " Right to Private Defence is absolutely necessary " . It is based on the cardinal principle that IT IS THE DUTY OF MAN TO HELP HIMSELF . According to English law , the attacked person can kill the attacker and such killing will amount to either Justifiable or Excusable homicide or just CHANCE MEDLEY accoding to the circumstances of the case . The IPC has gone further than the English law and it has taken the homicidial killing of the attacker by the attacked as a SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT of the attacked person . Thus the right to protect one's person and property against the unlawful aggressions of attackers is the inherent right granted to Indian citizens by the constitution and penal laws . This principle is common to all civil jurisprudence the world over . Now let me say something about ground reality in India or even in our Jammu . I don't want to take names but it is a common knowledge that many servants of government ask disgusting questions when sitting on licensing posts . May be it is their cowardice or some other reasons that they say irrelevant and non sense things like " why you need licence or they will issue when there will be a real threat or when you are posted out from Jammu ." It is a very abominable and disgusting attitude of those who somehow by cramming or whatever methods clear some exams and then try to show attitude simply forgetting that they are just servants of government as well as the public of India . I would request our honourable Chief Minister to kindly post some good officers to sit on licensing posts . Thus the ground reality is that normal Indian citizens have to bear with abominable and disgusting attitude of those who sit on licensing posts even while it should be mentioned that there are good officers also . And in country like America , the citizens are allowed such liberties . In India , the situation is even worse because here some communities on religious or other pretexts keep sharp edged weapons but the rest of communities are not perhaps allowed such liberties even while it is a fact that Indian parliament has never allowed sharp edged weapons beyond prescribed limits in its holy premises . Some tribal communities keep Gandassa or Dah like equipments or weapons . I think that our Hindu religion also allows to keep Daggers as a worship to God Vishnu and all citizens should be allowed similiar liberties as per the fundamental rights granted to all citizens that talk about rights to equality and freedoms in articles 14 to 16 of Indian constitution . The spirit of self defence is well outlined in the defence policy of India . It is well known that as first Prime Minister of India , Pandit Nehru took good care of civil infrastructure but forgot to take similiar care of millitary infrastructure . Pandit Nehru lacked the millitary will of iron lady Madam Indira Gandhi and he even questioned the utility of a large army for India . The result was the defeat that India had to face in 1962 battle with China . The nepotism in army at that time particularly in North Eastern sector is all well too known where a close confidant of Pandit Nehru had ordered Indian army retreat from Tezpur in NEFA . It was the bravery of Gen Sam Manekshaw who took over command in that area with small comment " There will be no retreats " . The whole point is that just like individuals have right to self defence , the countries also have right to self defence . I hope that the honourable Indian citizens like Mr Suresh Gupta will keep their defending spirit alive and I also hope that our country will defend against all attacking and rogue nations excercising our right to self defence . The content has no bearing on any person or any organisation and some part is quoted from a famous Supreme court judgement that is in public domain .
The author is guided by the motto " The Royale Gupta Warriors never fight for themselves but fight for a bigger cause . " Vande Matram and Jai Hind |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
