SUMMARY ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED
The learned counsel for the accused Jackson respectfully submits the following
summary arguments in support of his case that the act committed was done in lawful
private defence, without any criminal intention, and warrants exoneration from
liability:
1. That on 1st July 2024, the accused Jackson was confronted at his own residence
by the deceased Robert and four co-workers who forcibly entered his premises.
What began as an altercation over salary grievances escalated into a grave
threat to the safety of the accused’s wife, minor child, and his elderly,
wheelchair-bound mother.
2. That Robert picked up a kitchen knife, shouted violent threats, and advanced
menacingly towards Jackson’s family. Two of the intruders then tied Jackson’s
wife and child to a chair, while Robert continued to brandish the knife, placing
the family in clear and imminent danger.
3. In the face of this aggression, Jackson snatched the knife and inflicted a single
stab wound in a spontaneous act of private defence to save his family. The
circumstances leave no room for doubt that the accused acted in good faith and
under compulsion of necessity.
RELIED UPON CASE LAWS WITH SUMMARIES
1. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605
Summary: The Supreme Court held that a sudden and grave provocation, when not
premeditated and in the heat of the moment, may significantly reduce criminal liability.
Though this case dealt with culpable homicide, it reaffirmed that mens rea must be
established to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
✅ Applies to Jackson’s situation of sudden provocation and absence of mens rea.
2. Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333
Summary: Held that when a person is faced with a threat to life or grievous harm, he
need not wait to be attacked; a reasonable apprehension suffices to invoke private
defence. The right may extend even to causing death if justified.
3. State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy,
(1999) 8 SCC 715
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a person is placed in a
situation of sudden provocation and immediate danger, with no time to seek
protection from authorities or retreat, and where infliction of injury is the only
reasonable option to prevent further harm, then the act committed falls squarely
within the ambit of private defence.
4. Rajan v. State of Kerala, (2022) 6 SCC 395
Summary: The accused was acquitted for defending his minor son from armed
aggression. The Court accepted that such acts, though fatal, fall within the protective
canopy of private defence.
5. Manoj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2023) 3 SCC 414
Summary: Reaffirmed that private defence needs to be established only by
preponderance of probabilities, especially at the stage of bail or charge. The burden is
lighter and must be interpreted liberally where danger is clear.
6. Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 463
Summary: The Court observed that a single blow, without pre-planning or intent to
kill, cannot be treated as culpable homicide. A single reactive act must be viewed
differently from a deliberate killing.
7. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh, (2011) 4 SCC 786
Summary: The Court reiterated that self-preservation and protection of family are
natural and recognised in law, and if exercised proportionately, negate criminality.
CONCLUSION
4. The cumulative evidence, including:
o The spontaneous nature of the act
o The critical condition of Jackson’s wife and child
o The presence of aged mother who is wheelchair-bound
o Absence of intent, premeditation, or repeated assault
clearly indicate that the action was justified and falls squarely within Section 14 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 96–100 IPC.
5. The Hon’ble Court is thus humbly urged to treat the accused’s conduct as lawful
private defence, not attracting criminal culpability.
PRAYER
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
Accept the defence of private defence raised by the accused;
Hold that the act committed was proportionate and justifiable under the law; and
Grant relief to the accused either by way of discharge, bail, or acquittal, as the
case may warrant.
Advocate for the Accused
Bengaluru
Date
Citations
1. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605 (India).
2. Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333 (India).
3. Rajan v. State of Kerala, (2022) 6 SCC 395 (India).
4. Manoj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2023) 3 SCC 414 (India).
5. Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 463 (India).
6. State of M.P. v. Ramesh, (2011) 4 SCC 786 (India).
7. State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, (1999) 8 SCC 715 (India).
Bibliography
1. Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, §§ 96–100, 304, 326, 506 (India).
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, § 227 (India).
3. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023, § 14 (India).
4. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 46 of 2023, § 479 (India).
