1996(3) Crimes 212 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Faizan Uddin & Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.
Kashmiri Lal & Ors. - Appellants
versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 1980
Decided on 29-8-1996

IMPORTANT POINT
The law does not confer a right of self defence on a person who invites an attack on himself by his own attack on another as the principle of right of self defence cannot legitimately be utilised as a shield to justify an act of aggression.

Headnote:Indian, Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 307, 326, 326/34, 324, 323 and 452-Conviction under Appeal against-Appellant had tenanted first, floor of premises to deceased-Appellant and his wife occupied ground floor-Eviction proceedings Pending-Positive evidence that incident had occurred, in first floor occupied by complainant party Appellants were aggressors having attacked complainant party and deceased in their dwelling apartment-No right of private defence available to them-Serious injuries inflicted to several persons of complainant party-Fatal injuries caused to deceased when he had fallen down with face downward-Repeated assaults made on back of deceased causing massive damage to vital organs-There being intention to inflict those particular bodily injuries which were, neither accidental nor unintentional-Acts of appellants fall within purview of Section 300 thirdly punishable u/s 302-Conviction recorded is legally sustainable.

       Held: Strictly speaking the right of private defence under the Penal Code is entirely a preventive measure provided to a person or party who is unlawfully attacked by another person or party, to dispel such attack. But there is no such right of private defence available under the Code against an act which is in itself an offence. The Law does not confer a right of self defence on a person who invites an attack on himself by his own attack on another. The principle of right of self defence cannot legitimately be utilised as a shield to justify an act of aggression. A person who is unlawfully attacked has every right to counteract and attack upon his assailant and cause such injury as may be necessary to ward of the apprehended danger or threat. (Para 17)

       In the instant case before us, as discussed above, we have conclusively found, on the basis of positive evidence, that the incident had occurred in the first floor occupied by the complainant party and the appellants themselves were the troubleshooters and aggressors having attacked the complainant party and the deceased in their dwelling apartment and, therefore, no right of private defence was available to them because the Law does not confer a right of self-defence on such persons who invite an attack on themselves by their own high-handedness, threat or attack on another .(Para 18) Result: Appeal dismissed.