Question:medium

Principle: Everyone has the right of private defence to defend his body and property by use of reasonable force unless that person had time to have recourse to protection of public authorities.
Facts: X receives information at 5:00 pm that Y along with a few friends is planning to burn his crop at midnight which is ready to be harvested. He does not inform the village Police Station which was just one kilometer away. He gathers his family members and directs them to collect some weapons in the form of swords and lathis to protect his field/crop. At around 11:00 pm Y and his aides attack the crop and a severe fight ensues wherein Y is seriously injured.

Show Hint

Always consider whether public authorities could have been informed before resorting to private defence.
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
  • X is not liable as he was exercising his right of private defence.
  • X and his family are not liable for the injuries caused as they were exercising the right of private defence.
  • X is liable.
  • X and his family are liable as they have not informed the police.
Show Solution

The Correct Option is D

Approach Solution - 1

Step 1: Understanding the Principle:
The right of private defence protects a person's body and property, but it does not apply if that person had time to seek help from the police or other public authorities instead of using force.

Step 2: Applying the Principle to the Facts:
X found out about the planned attack at 5 pm, with a police station only a kilometre away and about six hours before the attack at 11 pm. Instead of informing the police, X gathered his family and weapons to confront the attackers directly.

Step 3: Evaluating the Other Options:
Because X had both the time and an easy way to reach the police, calling the response an exercise of private defence does not hold, whether for X alone or for X and his family together. The liability also cannot rest on X alone, since the family joined in the confrontation on his direction.

Step 4: Final Answer:
X and his family are liable, since they had time to inform the police and chose not to.
Was this answer helpful?
0
Show Solution

Approach Solution -2

Major premise: the right of private defence to protect body and property does not apply if the person had time to seek help from public authorities instead of using force. Minor premise: X learned of the planned attack at 5 pm, with a police station just a kilometre away, and did not report it before the attack at 11 pm, instead gathering his family and weapons. Testing the conclusions:

  1. X is not liable, exercising private defence: This conclusion needs the major premise's exception, having time to reach the police, to be absent, but the minor premise shows exactly that time and access were both present.
  2. X and family are not liable, exercising private defence: This fails for the same reason as above, regardless of how many people are covered by the claim.
  3. X is liable: This conclusion correctly follows from the major premise being triggered, but it does not account for the minor premise's detail that X directed his family to join, so it understates who the conclusion should cover.
  4. X and his family are liable, for not informing the police: This is the conclusion that fully matches both premises, the defence is unavailable because of the missed opportunity to inform the police, and it extends to the family because the minor premise shows they joined the confrontation with X.

Only the fourth option accounts for both the triggering fact, time to inform the police, and the full group involved in the confrontation.

Therefore, the correct answer is X and his family are liable, as they did not inform the police.

Was this answer helpful?
0


Questions Asked in CLAT exam