Principle There are legal provisions to give authority to a person to use necessary force against an...........

Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860 Others

Principle: There are legal provisions to give authority to a person to use necessary force against an assailant or wrong-doer for the purpose of protecting one’s own body and property as also another’s body and property when immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available; and in so doing he is not answerable in law for his deeds.

Facts: X, a rich man was taking his morning walk. Due to the threat of robbers in the locality, he was carrying his pistol also. From the opposite direction, another person was coming with a ferocious looking dog. All of a sudden, the dog which was on a chain held by the owner, started barking at X. The owner of the dog called the dog to be calm. They crossed each other without any problem. But suddenly, the dog started barking again from a distance. X immediately took out his pistol. By seeing the pistol the dog stopped barking and started walking with the owner. However, X shot at the dog which died instantly. The owner of the dog files a complaint against X, which in due course reached the Magistrate Court. X pleads the right of private defence. Decide.

Shooting a fierce dog is not to be brought under the criminal law. So the case should be dismissed.

There was no imminent danger to X as the dog stopped barking and was walking with the owner. Hence, shooting it amounted to excessive use of the right of
private defence and hence liable for killing the dog.

The right of private defence is available to persons against assailants or wrongdoers only and a dog does not fall in this category.

As there was no guarantee that the dog would not bark again, shooting it was a precautionary measure and hence within the right available to X under law.

Explanation:

The right of private defence can be exercised duly only in a situation where the danger to life or property is real and imminent. The factual situation lays down that the dog was only barking at X. Its essential to keep in mind that the dog was chained and hence there wasn’t any real or unavoidable threat to Mr. X. Moreover, when Mr. X fired the shot the dog had stopped barking completely. There was no imminent danger to X as the dog stopped barking and was walking with the owner. Hence, shooting it amounted to excessive use of the right of private defence and hence liable for killing the dog.