B abused A by using unparliamentary words against him. A angered by this hit B on his head. B fell unconscious and was taken to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead. A was charged with the commission of a crime under Indian Penal Code. But A denied the criminal liability holding that he exercised his right of self defence and the death was an accident. Whether A is guilty of crime? Decide with appropriate rule of interpretation.

You are here:
  • KB Home
  • Model Solved Problems
  • B abused A by using unparliamentary words against him. A angered by this hit B on his head. B fell unconscious and was taken to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead. A was charged with the commission of a crime under Indian Penal Code. But A denied the criminal liability holding that he exercised his right of self defence and the death was an accident. Whether A is guilty of crime? Decide with appropriate rule of interpretation.
< Back

ANSWER

A is not guilty of any crime, because he has exercised his right of private defence. In exercising his right of private defence, he can cause reasonable harm to the person who used unparliamentary words against him. He has no intention of causing the death of B, but only cause hurt to stop him from further using unparliamentary words against him.

This is based on the golden rule of interpretation. If an interpretation leads to absurdity, repugnance, inconvenience, hardship injustice or evasion, then the court must modify the meaning to rectify them. Thus the court should not mechanically interpret that when death is caused by beating, it amounts to either culpable homicide or murder by following literal interpretation.

Last Updated On February 17, 2018
CartItem Removed. Undo
  • No products in the cart.