| Principle A person is entitled to use reasonable force for self defence. |
| Facts Gokul was living in a farmhouse with a few family members. One night, a group of robbers broke open the door of the house and there was scuffle between the intruders and the residents. Gokul took out his pistol and fired a shot at one of the intruders. The shot did not hit the target and the robbers ran out of the house and by that time, the neighbours gathered in front of the house. Gokul in a fit of anger came out of the house and fired at fleeing robbers, who by that time mingled with the neighbours. The shot injured a neighbour and he filed a suit against Gokul. |
A) Gokul is not liable, since his action was in continuation of self defence
B) Gokul is liable, because he should have realized the possibility of hitting an innocent bystander
C) Gokul is not liable since his act was intended against the robbers
D) None of the above
Correct Answer: A
Solution :
Section 96 of IPC tells about thing done in private defence nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
You need to login to perform this action.
You will be redirected in
3 sec
