CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Directions: Read the following passage and an... Start Learning for Free
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.
When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.
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 against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction 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.
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.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers' Blog by The Times of India]
Q. Arun issued a threat to Banke over the phone, indicating his intention to arrive in the evening with a pistol to harm him. In response, Banke armed himself with a homemade pistol and awaited Arun's arrival. Approximately 8 hours later, Banke observed Arun approaching his residence while holding a firearm. In response to this imminent threat, Banke fired a shot, resulting in Arun's immediate death. Evaluate the applicability of the right to private defence in this scenario.
  • a)
    Yes, this is a clear instance of the right to private defence.
  • b)
    Banke used lethal force only upon encountering Arun with a firearm, making it a case of private defence.
  • c)
    There is no entitlement to the right of private defence because Banke had ample time to seek police assistance for protection.
  • d)
    Both options 1 and 2
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing...
Banke had enough time in the scenario to seek the protection of the police, hence he was not entitled to a private defense. The Indian Penal Code's provisions make it clear that there is no right to a private defense in situations where there is enough time to seek out the authorities' protection.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence. 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 against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction 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. 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. [Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India] Q.What are the restrictions on the right of private defence?

The application and implementation of the Article 19 (All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India subject to reasonable conditions) on the people of India can be seen from two angles. In Ebrahim Vazir Mavat vs. State of Bombay, the judgment under the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949 showed that the Supreme Court would not be convinced regarding the existence of ""emergent circumstances"" to justify the denial of the right upon the subjective satisfaction of the government or any of its officers.On the other side, however, was the dissenting note on the same issue by the legendary chief justice, Sudhi Ranjan Das, who had this to say: ""Suppose an Indian citizen, no matter whether a Hindu or a Muslim, had entered India from Pakistan without a permit and suppose he was... engaged in espionage in the interest of Pakistan; would it have been safe enough... to have only prosecuted him under section 5 and inflicted on him a fine of rupees one thousand or a term of imprisonment not exceeding a year and then to have left him free after the term of imprisonment was over, to surreptitiously carry on his nefarious activities of espionage and sabotage against our State while embarking upon a protracted judicial inquiry to ascertain the truth or otherwise of his claim to Indian citizenship?"" The dissenting voice is fair and objective too. ""In the interests of general public"" free movement of citizens could be curbed. Is this the case today?We may again see the types of citizens whose right to free movement have been curbed in the past. Thus restrictions to protect the interests of scheduled tribes have been stipulated for the aboriginal tribes with their distinct culture, language and customs. Unrestricted entry of 'outsiders' in areas inhabited by the tribal folks might jeopardize their very existence and interests, as is shown by the supreme court.Restrictions on the free movement imposed on prostitutes to carry on their trade within a specified area and to reside in or move from particular areas have been held to be valid. Restrictions on residence imposed on habitual offenders have been upheld by the courts as being reasonable. Again ""restrictions on the movements of persons afflicted with AIDS have been held by Bombay High Court to be valid”.The four-day ban on free movement of citizens of India on a Calcutta road once again brings to light the problems of fundamental rights, which more often than not have been flouted, arbitrarily, for enforcement of political strength. But West Bengal is not the only state to do what it has done regarding the Constitution. There are others too. And there is competition, as the show goes on.When a citizen tested positive for disease that rapidly-spreads when he comes in contact, even remote, with other humans and animals, the government imposed restriction on his movement and forced him to quarantine for three weeks. After the quarantine, he moved to the court challenging the imposition of restriction. What would likely be the outcome of the case?

General defenses available under the IPC are as follows:- Mistake of fact- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or by reason of a mistake of fact, not by mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do such an act. It is derived from the legal maxim “ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat”. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing that particular act.Accident- Includes an Accident committed while doing a lawful act. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.Infancy- It includes an act of a child below seven years of age. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. It includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of immature understanding. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not yet attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and repercussions of his conduct during that occasion.Insanity- Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at that time of performing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.Intoxication- Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law, provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered involuntarily without his will or knowledge.Q. Giriraj goes to a party and his friends force him to drink. Initially he refuses but later he agrees to drink. He gets sloshed, while returning from the party he knocks down a person with his car. Will he be liable?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens certain fundamental freedoms, which are recognized as their fundamental rights. However, these fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India are not absolute as no right can be. Each of these fundamental rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by the Parliament or the State Legislatures. Accordingly, the Constitution of India lays down the grounds and the purposes for which a legislature can impose reasonable restrictions on the rights guaranteed to citizens. The State cannot travel beyond the contours of these reasonable restrictions in curbing the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. While determining the constitutional validity of a restriction imposed on a fundamental right by a legislation, the Court is not concerned with the necessity of the restriction or the wisdom of the policy underlying it, but only whether the restriction is in excess of the requirement, and whether the legislature has overstepped the Constitutional limitations. Two of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of India are- the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the right to reside and settle in any part of India. However, the State may impose reasonable restrictions on these rights by law, in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled tribes.Q.A group of Indian students of XYZ University located in New Delhi, India posted on social networking sites that they would hold a demonstration outside the university campus, protesting against a recently passed law which made it compulsory for university students to wear uniforms while attending classes. The students further threatened to use whatever means necessary to stop the oppression of students. Therefore, the State Authorities placed barricades around the university campus in order to restrict movement of the students carrying out the demonstration and ensuring that the demonstration does not turn violent. In the given situation, which of the following statements is correct regarding the act of placing of barricades by State Authorities?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.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 against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction 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.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.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Arun issued a threat to Banke over the phone, indicating his intention to arrive in the evening with a pistol to harm him. In response, Banke armed himself with a homemade pistol and awaited Aruns arrival. Approximately 8 hours later, Banke observed Arun approaching his residence while holding a firearm. In response to this imminent threat, Banke fired a shot, resulting in Aruns immediate death. Evaluate the applicability of the right to private defence in this scenario.a)Yes, this is a clear instance of the right to private defence.b)Banke used lethal force only upon encountering Arun with a firearm, making it a case of private defence.c)There is no entitlement to the right of private defence because Banke had ample time to seek police assistance for protection.d)Both options 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.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 against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction 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.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.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Arun issued a threat to Banke over the phone, indicating his intention to arrive in the evening with a pistol to harm him. In response, Banke armed himself with a homemade pistol and awaited Aruns arrival. Approximately 8 hours later, Banke observed Arun approaching his residence while holding a firearm. In response to this imminent threat, Banke fired a shot, resulting in Aruns immediate death. Evaluate the applicability of the right to private defence in this scenario.a)Yes, this is a clear instance of the right to private defence.b)Banke used lethal force only upon encountering Arun with a firearm, making it a case of private defence.c)There is no entitlement to the right of private defence because Banke had ample time to seek police assistance for protection.d)Both options 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.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 against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction 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.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.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Arun issued a threat to Banke over the phone, indicating his intention to arrive in the evening with a pistol to harm him. In response, Banke armed himself with a homemade pistol and awaited Aruns arrival. Approximately 8 hours later, Banke observed Arun approaching his residence while holding a firearm. In response to this imminent threat, Banke fired a shot, resulting in Aruns immediate death. Evaluate the applicability of the right to private defence in this scenario.a)Yes, this is a clear instance of the right to private defence.b)Banke used lethal force only upon encountering Arun with a firearm, making it a case of private defence.c)There is no entitlement to the right of private defence because Banke had ample time to seek police assistance for protection.d)Both options 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.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 against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction 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.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.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Arun issued a threat to Banke over the phone, indicating his intention to arrive in the evening with a pistol to harm him. In response, Banke armed himself with a homemade pistol and awaited Aruns arrival. Approximately 8 hours later, Banke observed Arun approaching his residence while holding a firearm. In response to this imminent threat, Banke fired a shot, resulting in Aruns immediate death. Evaluate the applicability of the right to private defence in this scenario.a)Yes, this is a clear instance of the right to private defence.b)Banke used lethal force only upon encountering Arun with a firearm, making it a case of private defence.c)There is no entitlement to the right of private defence because Banke had ample time to seek police assistance for protection.d)Both options 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.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 against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction 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.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.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Arun issued a threat to Banke over the phone, indicating his intention to arrive in the evening with a pistol to harm him. In response, Banke armed himself with a homemade pistol and awaited Aruns arrival. Approximately 8 hours later, Banke observed Arun approaching his residence while holding a firearm. In response to this imminent threat, Banke fired a shot, resulting in Aruns immediate death. Evaluate the applicability of the right to private defence in this scenario.a)Yes, this is a clear instance of the right to private defence.b)Banke used lethal force only upon encountering Arun with a firearm, making it a case of private defence.c)There is no entitlement to the right of private defence because Banke had ample time to seek police assistance for protection.d)Both options 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.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 against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction 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.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.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Arun issued a threat to Banke over the phone, indicating his intention to arrive in the evening with a pistol to harm him. In response, Banke armed himself with a homemade pistol and awaited Aruns arrival. Approximately 8 hours later, Banke observed Arun approaching his residence while holding a firearm. In response to this imminent threat, Banke fired a shot, resulting in Aruns immediate death. Evaluate the applicability of the right to private defence in this scenario.a)Yes, this is a clear instance of the right to private defence.b)Banke used lethal force only upon encountering Arun with a firearm, making it a case of private defence.c)There is no entitlement to the right of private defence because Banke had ample time to seek police assistance for protection.d)Both options 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.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 against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction 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.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.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Arun issued a threat to Banke over the phone, indicating his intention to arrive in the evening with a pistol to harm him. In response, Banke armed himself with a homemade pistol and awaited Aruns arrival. Approximately 8 hours later, Banke observed Arun approaching his residence while holding a firearm. In response to this imminent threat, Banke fired a shot, resulting in Aruns immediate death. Evaluate the applicability of the right to private defence in this scenario.a)Yes, this is a clear instance of the right to private defence.b)Banke used lethal force only upon encountering Arun with a firearm, making it a case of private defence.c)There is no entitlement to the right of private defence because Banke had ample time to seek police assistance for protection.d)Both options 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.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 against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction 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.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.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Arun issued a threat to Banke over the phone, indicating his intention to arrive in the evening with a pistol to harm him. In response, Banke armed himself with a homemade pistol and awaited Aruns arrival. Approximately 8 hours later, Banke observed Arun approaching his residence while holding a firearm. In response to this imminent threat, Banke fired a shot, resulting in Aruns immediate death. Evaluate the applicability of the right to private defence in this scenario.a)Yes, this is a clear instance of the right to private defence.b)Banke used lethal force only upon encountering Arun with a firearm, making it a case of private defence.c)There is no entitlement to the right of private defence because Banke had ample time to seek police assistance for protection.d)Both options 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.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 against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction 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.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.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Arun issued a threat to Banke over the phone, indicating his intention to arrive in the evening with a pistol to harm him. In response, Banke armed himself with a homemade pistol and awaited Aruns arrival. Approximately 8 hours later, Banke observed Arun approaching his residence while holding a firearm. In response to this imminent threat, Banke fired a shot, resulting in Aruns immediate death. Evaluate the applicability of the right to private defence in this scenario.a)Yes, this is a clear instance of the right to private defence.b)Banke used lethal force only upon encountering Arun with a firearm, making it a case of private defence.c)There is no entitlement to the right of private defence because Banke had ample time to seek police assistance for protection.d)Both options 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend, first, his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; secondly. the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.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 against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction 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.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.[Extracted with edits and revisions from Readers Blog by The Times of India]Q.Arun issued a threat to Banke over the phone, indicating his intention to arrive in the evening with a pistol to harm him. In response, Banke armed himself with a homemade pistol and awaited Aruns arrival. Approximately 8 hours later, Banke observed Arun approaching his residence while holding a firearm. In response to this imminent threat, Banke fired a shot, resulting in Aruns immediate death. Evaluate the applicability of the right to private defence in this scenario.a)Yes, this is a clear instance of the right to private defence.b)Banke used lethal force only upon encountering Arun with a firearm, making it a case of private defence.c)There is no entitlement to the right of private defence because Banke had ample time to seek police assistance for protection.d)Both options 1 and 2Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev