A social media post accompanying a newspaper clipping, the Hindi title of which loosely translates to ‘Law can be taken into hand if family is attacked: Supreme Court’, is being widely shared. The clip is being shared with a provocative message. Through this article, let’s fact-check the claim made in the post.
Claim: ‘Law can be taken into hand if family is attacked: Supreme Court’
Fact: In 2016, the Supreme Court acquitted two men, who were convicted for assaulting their neighbours. The court acquitted the men believing the act as done in self defence. In the context of section 97 of IPC, the apex court emphasised that ‘the appellants can legitimately claim right to use force once they saw their parents being assaulted’. However, back then, the media reported the news as the SC extending the boundaries of self defence and the viral news clip is also of one such misleading news report. However, the SC merely interpreted the provisions of section 97 of IPC in spirit. Hence the claim made in the post is MISLEADING.
The Supreme Court in 2016 while acquitting two men convicted for assaulting their neighbours, opined that ‘the use of force is justified if children see their parents being assaulted by someone else and it would be treated as self defence.’
Earlier, the two men were convicted by the trial court for the offence of attempt to murder. Later, the Rajasthan High Court held them guilty on the grounds of culpable homicide, ruling out the claims of the accused that the attack was just self defence (under section 97 of IPC).
The court further stated that the right of private defence under Section 97 of the IPC could not be invoked by the accused. The High court came to this conclusion as both the parties withheld the origin and genesis of the incident and considered the incident as a free fight.
Section 97 of IPC:
Right of private defence of the body and of property – Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend
- His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body.
- The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass.
Challenging this conviction, the two men approached the Supreme Court claiming the assault as self defence, as the prosecution party had beaten their father, leading to his death.
The Supreme Court overturning the decision of the High Court, opined that the High court should have awarded the benefit of doubt to the accused, as the prosecution failed to explain the injuries of the accused and the death of their father. Further, acquitting the men, the apex court emphasised that ‘the appellants can legitimately claim right to use force once they saw their parents being assaulted’.
Media misinterpreted the Judgement
However, when the SC delivered the judgment in 2016, few media agencies erroneously reported that SC has expanded the scope of the self defence. The newspaper clip shared in the viral post is also one such wrong interpretation of the judgement by the media. However, the apex court did not exclusively expand the purview of self defence but merely interpreted the provisions of section 97 of IPC in spirit.
By sharing the old news clip related to the above-mentioned judgment, it is wrongly being perceived as if the court has given a free hand to act in self defence (here), which is not true.
To sum it up, old news clip related to Supreme Court’s judgment favouring use of force for self defence is being shared with misleading claims.
