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.

Self defence is considered as a universal exception for intentionally causing harm.

The robbers, armed with knives and crowbars, broke the access door of a house and entered into it. The owner of the house took out his gun and threatened to shoot them. The roobers ran out of the house and started pelting stones. The owner opened the fire. Having heard the gun shot, the police rushed to the place and announced that the owner must stop firing. The owner, suspecting mischief, continued to fire and a policeman was injured by a shot. The robbers meanwhile field away. The owner was sued for attacking the public servant on duty.

  1. The owner shall be liable for causing harm, in excess of what is necessary for self defence.

  2. The owner shall not be liable for attacking the public servant as such, though he may be held liable otherwise.

  3. The owner's action is justified by the consideration of self defence.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

The fact that self defence is an exception to international harm gives rise to the inference that this right must be exercised with caution and the law will not tolerate an unjustified or excessive exercise of this right. Suspicion that the police officer was not who he claimed to be and the consequent continuation of shooting is clearly an excessive exercise of this right.

Keep practicing — related questions