Chennai : The Madras High Court recently ruled that individuals who kill in self-defence or to protect others from sexual crimes may be exempt from punishment under Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This significant observation came as the court allowed a petition to quash a murder case against a woman who killed her husband in a desperate bid to save her daughter.
A bench of Justice G Jayachandran was presented with a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by a woman seeking to overturn the murder charge against her. The woman had killed her husband after he, in a drunken state, attempted to assault their 21-year-old daughter.
According to the petition, the woman was forced into this act of self-defence when she found her husband lying on top of her daughter and choking her. Despite her attempts to pull him off, he did not release his grip. Initially, she used a wooden knife to strike him on the back of the head, but when this did not stop him, she resorted to using a hammer, which ultimately caused his death.
The woman’s counsel argued that the daughter’s testimony and the photographs of the deceased, which showed an injury on the back of his head, clearly indicated that the killing was an act of self-defence. They contended that prosecuting the woman under Section 302 of the IPC, which pertains to murder, was unjust given the circumstances of the case.
The court acknowledged that the deceased was intoxicated and had been assaulting his daughter. The evidence, including the position of the body and the nature of the injuries, supported the claim of self-defence. Justice G Jayachandran noted that Section 97 of the IPC provides the right to self-defence against offences affecting the body, which includes sexual offences such as those under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman), 375 (rape), 354-A (sexual harassment), and 354-B (disrobing).
The court emphasised that such protections extend to scenarios where an individual, in protecting themselves or others from sexual assault, might resort to deadly force. Given that the woman’s actions were in direct response to a violent sexual attack, the court found that the murder charge was unwarranted.
In this case, the court found that the use of force was justified under the principle of self-defence as per Section 97. The evidence corroborated the woman’s account of events, showing that her actions were motivated by a dire need to protect her daughter.
Consequently, the Madras High Court allowed the woman’s petition and quashed the murder complaint filed against her. This ruling underscores the legal recognition of self-defense in protecting against sexual crimes and sets a precedent for similar cases.
The decision highlights the importance of considering the context in which self-defence is claimed, especially in cases involving domestic violence and sexual assault. It reaffirms that individuals defending themselves or others from imminent harm have legal protections, even if the outcome results in a fatality.