Principles (for Questions 1 -4 ):
Every person has the right to defend his own body and his property against any crime affecting his body or property from aggression by another person. The right of self defense cannot be extended so as to inflict more than necessary harm. The right does not exist where a person has the time to contact public authorities.
1. Facts: Ramesh and Rajesh were brothers embroiled in a property dispute. During the pendency of ourt proceedings for the settlement over the partition of their house, Rajesh entered the disputed house in which Ramesh resided with his family. After an argument Ramesh served a blow to Rajesh’s back with a lathi, following which he punched Ramesh who reacted by swinging the lathi which hit Rajesh who succumbed to the injury caused to his head.
The first blow by Ramesh would be considered:
(a) An unjustified act of aggression.
(b) An act of self-defense.
(c) A reaction to being cornered.
(d) A proportionate act.
2. The second blow by Ramesh:
(a) A proportionate act.
(b) An act of self-defense.
(c) An act of aggression.
(d) An uncontrolled reaction.
3. The blow by Rajesh was:
(a) An act of aggression
(b) An act of self-defense
(c) An uncontrolled reaction
(d) A disproportionate reaction
4. Facts: Ramesh and Rajesh were brothers embroiled in a property dispute. During the pendency of court proceedings for the settlement over the partition of their house, Rajesh along with four of his friends entered the disputed house and began to live there. Once the court decided the matter and held that Ramesh was the proper owner he entered the house and assaulted Rajesh to gain possession over the property.
The act of Ramesh constitutes:
(a) Self-defense to protect his property from aggression.
(b) Disproportionate self-defense to protect his property from aggression.
(c) A valid act in light of the court order.
(d) An act of aggression.
Principles (for Questions 5 -6):
I. The offence of defamation consists of making or publishing by words, signs or representations any imputation to harm the reputation of a person. Imputing anything true in public good is not an offence of defamation.
II. An imputation on the character of a person is not considered defamatory if such imputation is made
in good faith to protect someone’s interest or in public good.
III. A statement made in order to convey a caution to another person or in public good is not considered
to be a defamatory statement.
5. Facts: Ajay was accused of committing the crime of sedition and was facing investigation. During
the interrogation proceedings, he was subjected to narco-analysis testing, the results of which pointed
towards the involvement of a renowned businessman Vijay Thakral in sedition activities. The next day a national daily, Sandhya Vichar carried an article on the results of the tests and reported Vijay Thakral’s involvement. Vijay Thakral sued the newspaper for defamation.
The best argument that may be adopted by the newspaper is that:
(a) The investigation agencies provided the information and hence these agencies were liable.
(b) The statement had been published without any imputation on Vijay Thakral’s character.
(c) The suit was an attempt by Vijay Thakral to misuse judicial remedies and the suit is baseless.
(d) The statement published was true in light of the narco-analysis test and hence was not defamatory.
6. The newspaper shall be held guilty of defamation if:
(a) The Court finds Vijay Thakral guilty of sedition.
(b) The Court finds Ajay guilty of sedition
(c) The Court finds the narco-analysis necessary in light of the facts
(d) The Court finds Vijay Thakral innocent of sedition.
1. (A) The facts state that the brothers had an argument but there is no indication of any provocation on the part of
Rajesh. Accordingly, the first blow dealt by Ramesh was an act of aggression uncalled for in the circumstances.
2.(C) The second blow by Ramesh could not be considered to an act of self-defense as he had initiated the fight with an unjustified act and the same would also be an act of aggression which caused a casualty.
3. (C)Rajesh’s reaction to being hit after an argument would be considered to be an act of self-defense against an act of aggression by Ramesh.
4. (D)Ramesh in the stated facts was the rightful owner of the property which was under the control of Rajesh. The proper course of action for Ramesh was to contact public authorities to evict Rajesh and his friends. The act of assaulting Rajesh was an act of aggression.
5. (D)Truth is the ultimate defense in a proceeding for defamation. Hence stating and proving the truthfulness of their claim would be the best defense for the newspaper in question.
6. (D) If subsequent proceedings in the sedition case show that Vijay Thakral is innocent, the publication by the newspaper would become false and would have the effect of maligning his image making the statement defamatory.
