Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.


“In that event he can go the extent of causing the latter’s death in the exercise of the right of private (self) defence even though the latter may not have inflicted any blow or injury on him,” a bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and H S Bedi observed.

The problem is not with the law of the land, it lies elsewhere. Why does it take 30 years for the courts to acquit a man who had killed another in self-defence? The answer include the following:

1.The police is interested in statistics and consequently, presses for prosecution even when the evidence clearly shows that the Act was in self defence.

2. The lower court, in this case the Sessions, is indifferent to the TRUTH and routinely, when there is a case of death, leans on the side of CONVICTING instead of the TRUTH.

3. The local police is interested in the Law & Order problem that might erupt in that area, which might create DISORDER. So the police prefers INJUSTICE to DISORDER.

4. During the TRIAL of the case, it is very difficult to establish if the DEATH occurred due to SELF-DEFENCE or  is it merely  a plea set up, to evade the consequences.

5. Before a matter comes up to the Supreme Court, there is considerable systemic delays which start from the Sessions court, appeal to the High Court, Revision, Review & writs in the meanwhile.

6. When a person has been acquitted on grounds of self-defence the Society does not feel compunction for having kept him tied to the courts for ONE GENERATION! It views it as  POETIC JUSTICE, meted out to the Accused for some crime committed in the past or in the PREVIOUS BIRTH.

7. WE AS INDIVIDUALS COMPRISING THE SOCIETY, DO NOT FEEL OBLIGED TO TAKE THE SIDE OF THE SURVIVOR WHO WAS COURAGEOUS ENOUGH TO TAKE HIS RIGHTS SERIOUSLY

THE PROVISIONS OF THE RELEVANT SECTION OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE IS REPRODUCED HERE BELOW:-

Section 100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death

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 right be 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;

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.

WE AS INDIANS ARE IN THE THRESHOLD OF DECIDING OUR RIGHTS OF SELF-DEFENCE, ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF GOONS WHO HAVE ALIGHTED ON THE MORAL ARENA, WHO HAVE THREATENED AND ASSAULTED INDIVIDUALS EVEN WITHOUT GIVING THEM A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO RETREAT OR RECANT.

THREE CHEERS TO THE SUPREME COURT THAT HAD DECLARED THE LAW OF THE LAND CATEGORICALLY!


Advertisements

Comments on: "30 years to uphold SELF DEFENCE!!" (1)

  1. It took Supreme court 30 years to decide the matter. Justice delayed is justice denied. 30 years has been added to his life span with the tag of murderer. Now it has been undone

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: