When such Right to causing any Harm other than Death - Section 104

What is the punishment for IPC 104 Case?

When the General exception of Private Defence represented throughout the Section 96 to Section 106 of the Indian Penal Code is proved in court, the person cannot be held guilty of the Offence, since it is a defense it does not offer punishment but acts as a medium to save people who are not guilty under law because they were defending themselves.

Is IPC 104 cognizable offence or non-cognizable offence?

A non-cognizable offence basically represents an offence wherein, in a case, the police officer will have no authority to arrest the person involved without a warrant they are considered less serious compared to cognizable offences and cognizable offences include cases in which the Police do have the authority to arrest a person without a warrant. Since IPC Section 104 is an extension to the right of Self Defence as represented under Section 96 to Section 106 of the Indian Penal Code and private defense being a General exception does not offer any clear description of it being cognizable or non-cognizable.

Any famous judgment of Section 104 of the Indian Penal Code, if any?

V.C Cheriyan v. State Of Kerala: In the case, V.C Cheriyan v. the State of Kerala, the accused in this case includes three deceased along with other persons who went on to illegally raid a road which was basically through the private property of the church. There was a criminal case that was kept pending against them. The three accused belonging to the church put up barricades across this road. The deceased was stabbed by the accused and Kerala High Court in this particular case held that private defence does not extend to causing the death of a person in this case.

Jai Bhagwan v. the State of Haryana: The accused in this case are Jai Bhagwan and Sushil, who caused death by a  murderous assault of their own uncle Prithvi. The conflict between the accused group and the deceased group which had eventually resulted in the unfortunate event, relating to a certain owned land. The land was owned by the accused and was declared by the decree of the Civil court, but the victim in this case and his brother, Hawa Singh, went on to challenge the validity of the same decree. There is a record to show that if the accused were put in possession pursuant to the partition of the land, so though the victim and his sons were found to have the possession and cultivation of the same land for the last thirty years.

Get in touch with the best lawyer online

The High Court in this particular case has recorded the occurrence that took place in the land in which is in possession of the defendants. The victim along with his son Wazir Singh, his daughter, and his daughter-in-law, went to the land to irrigate the same and he would have the turn of the water and irrigate the land and that after settlement of the dispute, the defendant could do it. 

The defendant’s plea for self defence of property under Section 103 and Section 104 Indian Penal Code, When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death. This right further extends under the restrictions mentioned to causing death voluntarily or any other harm to the wrong-doer, if the offence, the committing or attempting to commit in situations to the exercise of the right, be an offence of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely. On the facts of this case, which is stated above it was clearly held, so there is not enough proof to invoke Section 104 of the Indian Penal Code, as none of the offences which were mentioned above which is committed or attempts to commit by the relatives and the victim.