Such a right is clearly established where the lathi with which the first blow was given by the deceased on the accused was a solid heavy weapon and dangerous and the incised wound which the accused received from the deceased was grievous. When a husband noticed another man trying to rape his wife and he gave such man a quick succession of lathi blows resulting in his death and rescued his wife. It was held that the case was covered by Section 100 under which the right of private defence could extend even to the extent of causing death under such circumstances.
The right of private defence could not be said to have been exceeded. It was held that one is not required to prove his plea of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if he proves a prima facie case. It is true that the burden on an accused person to establish the plea of self-defence is not as onerous as the one which lies on the prosecution and while the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused need not establish the plea to the hilt and may discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probabilities either by laying basis for that plea in the cross-examination of prosecution witness or by adducing evidence. But in a case the accused did not admit that he inflicted any injuries on the deceased. His explanation was found to be false.
The accused had caused injuries to the unarmed deceased before he received injuries from others. The injuries on the accused were located in such position which gave an impression that they might have been caused when he was running away after inflicting injuries on the deceased. The oral testimony also was to that effect. On these facts it was held that the accused miserably failed to make out a plea of private defence. The deceased was waylaid and attacked by accused with dangerous weapons, the question of right of private defence does not arise.