SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 1274

James Martin – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Self-preservation is the prime instinct of every human being. The right of private defence is a recognized right in the criminal law. Therefore, Section 96 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) provides that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. The question is, as happens in many cases, where exercise is such rights is claimed, whether the "Lakshman Rekha", applicable to its exercise has been exceeded. Section 99 IPC delineates the extent to which the right may be exercised.

2. The claim was made by the accused in the following background:

Appellant-James Martin faced trial along with his father-Xavier for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326 read with Section 34 and Section 326 read with Section 114 IPC and Sections 25(B)(1) of the of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the Act ) and Sections 27 and 30 thereof. Learned Sessions Judge, N. Paravur, found the present appellant (A-1) guilty of offences punishable under Section 304 Part I, 326 and 324 IPC, while the other accused was found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34, 302 rea




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top