Question

Principles: (1) If a person commits an act by which death is caused to another person and the act is done with the intention of causing death, the person is liable for murder.
(2) A person has a right of self-defense to the extent of causing death to another provided he apprehends death by the act of the latter.
Facts: Shuva went to a hardware shop owned by Anup. Bargaining on some item led to an altercation between the two, and Shuva picked up a sharp object and hit Anup. When Anup started bleeding, his wife Mridula intervened and was also hit by Shuva, rendering her unconscious. Finding himself totally cornered, Anup delivered a severe blow to Shuva with a sharp object. Shuva died instantly.
Possible decisions: (a) Anup murdered Shuva
(b) Anup killed Shuva with the intention of killing to save himself and his wife
(c) Anup killed Shuva without any intention to do so just to save himself and his wife
Probable reasons: (i) If a person kills another instantly on the spot, the intention to kill is obvious.
(ii) Anup used force apprehending death of himself and his wife.
(iii) Anup used disproportionate force.
(iv) There was nothing to show that Shuva wanted to kill Anup or his wife.

• (a) (i)
• (a) (iii)
• (c) (ii)
• (b) (i)

Hint:

In self-defense legal scenarios, always check for the presence of {reasonable apprehension of death} and whether the force was proportional to the threat.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the principles Principle (1) requires clear intention to cause death for it to be murder. Principle (2) allows a person to cause death in self-defense if there is a genuine apprehension of death or serious harm. 

Step 2: Applying the facts - Shuva attacked Anup with a sharp object, causing bleeding. - Shuva also hit Mridula, causing her to become unconscious. - At this point, Anup was outnumbered (both injured and his wife incapacitated) and had reasonable grounds to believe that his life and his wife’s life were in danger. 

Step 3: Deciding on intent Anup’s action was a direct response to an immediate threat, with no evidence of prior intent to kill. The force used was in the context of apprehending death for himself and his wife — aligning with Principle (2). 

Step 4: Conclusion Therefore, Anup’s act falls under the category of killing without intention to kill, purely for self-defense. This matches decision (c) and reason (ii). \[ \boxed{\text{Correct answer: (c) (ii)}} \]