The Madras High Court quashed a murder case against a woman who killed her husband while defending their daughter from sexual assault, emphasizing the right to self-defense in such situations.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court made a ruling by quashing a murder case against a woman who had killed her husband while defending their 21-year-old daughter from his attempted sexual assault. The Court, presided over by Justice G Jayachandran, delivered a judgment that underscored the right to self-defense, especially in the context of protecting oneself or another from sexual violence.
Justice G Jayachandran, while examining the case, noted that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including photographs and the post-mortem report, were consistent with the explanation provided by the accused woman, who was the petitioner in this case, as well as the statement given by her daughter.
The Court observed-
“This case warrants intervention, considering that the deceased’s body was found semi-nude, and the head injury, including a fractured skull, aligns with the explanation provided by the petitioner and the statement given by the petitioner’s daughter.”
According to the prosecution’s investigation, the tragic incident occurred when the deceased man, in a state of inebriation, was found lying over his daughter, attempting to sexually assault her. The accused woman, who is the mother of the daughter, tried to intervene by pulling him away. However, when he did not respond to her efforts, she initially struck him with a wooden knife. Despite this, the man persisted in his assault, which led the woman to use a hammer, striking him on the head. This blow resulted in his immediate death.
Following the incident, the woman was booked under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder. However, the woman contended that her actions were a clear case of private defense under Section 97 of the IPC, which justifies the use of force to protect oneself or another from an imminent threat.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court’s Stance on Relationship Changes: Refuses To Quash Rape Case
The Court took into account the ‘General Exceptions’ outlined under Section 97 of the IPC, which permits the right to private defense.
The Court emphasized-
“Every individual has the right to self-defense and to protect others. Under Section 97 of the IPC, if someone acts to defend themselves or another person from a sexual offense, they are entitled to private defense. Even if the act is acknowledged, the petitioner is exempt from punishment under Section 97 of the IPC.”
In its analysis, the Court referred to the daughter’s statement, along with the prosecution’s evidence, which included the photographs and post-mortem report that revealed the man had sustained a fatal injury to the back of his head. This evidence further corroborated the woman’s defense that she acted in an attempt to protect her daughter from a grievous act of sexual violence.
“It is evident that the deceased, in a drunken state, attempted to misbehave with his own daughter. In order to protect her daughter’s honor, the petitioner, who is the girl’s mother, committed the act in question.”
– the Court observed, further highlighting the circumstances that led to the unfortunate event.
Given the circumstances and the evidence presented, the Court deemed it appropriate to intervene in the case. As a result, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the woman, effectively clearing her of the murder charge.
“In these circumstances, this case warrants intervention.”
– the Court remarked, recognizing the woman’s actions as a lawful exercise of her right to private defense.
In this case, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner during the hearing, while Government Advocate S Udaya Kumar represented the respondent.
