Question

Answer the question which follows from the application of the under mentioned legal principle.

Principle: The law permits citizens to use force only for protection when necessary against imminent attack.

Facts: P with the intention of committing theft entered the house of Q. Q, on seeing him entering, struck him with a lathi and P fell down unconscious. Thereafter, Q gave him another blow of lathi on his head which caused his death. On being prosecuted for murder, Q took the plea of private defense. Which of the following argument is valid?

पर्याय

• Since Q was acting in the exercise of right of private defense of his property, he had taken a valid defence

• Since in the defence of one's property one cannot cause death of the intruder, Q has no defense

• Q has used excessive force as once P fell unconscious; there was no need for the second blow. Hence, Q's plea of right of private defence will not succeed

• If P committed house breaking in the night, Q has the right to cause death in defense of his property, and thus Q's plea should prevail

Answer 1

Q has used excessive force as once P fell unconscious; there was no need for the second blow. Hence, Q's plea of right of private defense will not succeed

Explanation:

The first blow is for self-defense, but when the thief is unconscious after the first blow, there is no eminent threat to Q's life or property, thus the second blow is unreasonable.