Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

The recent ruling by the High Court of Karnataka in the case of C. Ganesh Narayan v. State of Karnataka stated that pepper spray cannot be used for private defence in situations where there is no immediate threat to life. The court deemed pepper spray a dangerous weapon in such circumstances.

What was the Background of C. Ganesh Narayan v. State of Karnataka Case?

• The complainant, Rajdeep Das, an employee of the company, engaged in a dispute with Vinod Hayagriv, resulting in an injunction suit against the company's director, C. Ganesh Narayan, to prevent property alterations obstructing movement around the building.
• The court granted an interim injunction on 28^th March 2023, barring property changes. On 07^th April 2023, Vinod Hayagriv attempted to construct a wall at the company's gate, leading to a confrontation.
• On 29^th April 2023, employees of Vinod Hayagriv allegedly interfered with the company's property, leading to a physical and verbal altercation wherein pepper spray was purportedly used by the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners faced charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). They claimed self-defence under Section 100 of the IPC, arguing pepper spray use in response to property interference.
• However, the Karnataka High Court refused to dismiss the criminal case against C. Ganesh Narayan and his wife for allegedly using pepper spray against the complainant and security personnel. The court considered pepper spray use in this context potentially illegal, rejecting it as self-defence.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the use of pepper spray as private defence, as prima facie there was no imminent threat or danger caused to her life. Therefore, the case at hand would require investigation in the least.
• The Court observed that there is no determination by law in this country regarding usage of pepper spray being a dangerous weapon.
• Further the Court referred the case of the United States of America in People v. Sandel 84 N.Y.S. 3d 340 (N.Y. Sup.Ct.2018) wherein it was held that noxious chemical sprays, like pepper sprays, are dangerous weapons.

What is the Provision of Private Defence in IPC?

About:

• Sections 76 to 106 in chapter IV of IPC deals with General Exceptions which are exempted from the category of offences under IPC.
• Section 100 of IPC deals with when the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.
• Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) the circumstances wherein the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death has been covered under Section 38.

Private Defence:

• The term private defence is not explicitly defined in the IPC.
• In simple terms it refers to the use of force by an individual to safeguard their life, liberty, or property.
• Section 100 of the IPC grants the right to self-defence against individuals who endanger life or property. In such cases, individuals are permitted to use defensive force, which may otherwise be considered unlawful.

Section 100 of IPC:

• Section 100 of the IPC grants individuals the right to defend their body, which may involve causing harm or death to the assailant, provided the offense falls within certain categories such as assault likely to cause death, grievous hurt, rape, unnatural lust, kidnapping, wrongful confinement, or throwing acid.
• This Section deals with the situation in which the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.
• It states that the right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely: —
  • Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault.
  • Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault.
  • An assault with the intention of committing rape.
  • An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust.
  • An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting.
  • An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.
  • An act of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to throw or administer acid which may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such act.

Essential Conditions for section 100 of IPC:

• For Section 100 of IPC, the following conditions should be fulfilled: -
  • There must be an immediate risk of life or grievous hurt to the body.
  • There must be no reasonable means to escape available.
  • There must be insufficient time to seek assistance from the authorities.
  • Causing the death of the assailant must have been unavoidable.