Multiple choice

Directions: Given below is a statement of legal principle, followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among the three alternatives given. Encircle your choice.

Principle: Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against an immediate harm, and to that end, may use reasonable amount of force.

Facts: Mr. Kaul was passing by Mrs. Mattoo's house. At that time, Mrs. Mattoo's dog ran out and bit Mr. Kaul's overcoat. Mr. Kaul turned around and raised the pistol he was carrying in the pocket of his overcoat. The dog ran away, and Mr. Kaul shot the dog as it was running away. Mr. Kaul knew that the dog had attacked so many other people in that locality of Jammu. Mrs. Mattoo claims that her dog was of a rare breed and it was worth Rs. 5000/-. She is planning to bring a legal action against Mr. Kaul for compensation.

  1. She will succeed in getting compensation from Mr. Kaul because he killed the dog which was not actually attacking him at the time of shooting.

  2. She will not succeed because Mr. Kaul was justified in shooting the dog to protect himself.

  3. She will not succeed because Mr. Kaul took the action to protect himself as well as many other members of public in future.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

The right of private defense (Section 96 IPC) only allows use of reasonable force to repel an immediate threat. Here, Mr. Kaul shot the dog when it was running away - the immediate threat had already ended. The force used was excessive and unreasonable under the circumstances. Self-defense cannot be used as a ground when the danger has passed, even though the dog had attacked others in the past.

Keep practicing — related questions