 We will start. Good evening, friends. After a lot of persuasion, we were ultimately able to succeed to ask Justice Avi Chandrasekhar to share his insights. We have already seen that the sessions taken by him are doing exceedingly well. And before going live to the session, we were talking that program and associates has actually in fact helped us to bridge with resources like Justice Chandrasekhar to speak on various perspectives of law. And whatever little I could gather in when they were talking about that, that they keep on taking topics which are quite fascinating, not only for these students, those were preparing for the judiciary in different industries. And today's topic, when we were discussing with Justice Avi Chandrasekhar before we finalized the topic, he said that his past experience has shown that dimensions in private defense in IPC is one topic which is slightly niche also. Coupled with the fact, when you are able to understand, then he's able to master the judicial process also in that manner. Before we will ask Justice Avi Chandrasekhar, a former judge from Prenadik High Court, to share his knowledge. I will ask our knowledge partner to share his insights, because he knows him. We have been connected with Justice Chandrasekhar virtually. He has been connected with him virtually as well as physically. Over to you, Director. Thank you, Mr. Kastchitran, sir. I am so grateful to Honorable Mr. Justice Avi Chandrasekhar, sir, for accepting our invite. It was quite sometimes since we had, sir, on our panel. Nevertheless, I was just remembering the days where I used to go and sit in his court hall and that proceedings itself used to be like a classroom for me. I used to observe, nevertheless, whether he was dealing with a bail matter or revision tradition or RSA or any other matter as such. So, his in-depth knowledge is something very appreciated. And of course, all of our viewers are very well aware that sir is an erudite speaker. So, once again, sir, on behalf of Beyond Laws, UNC and my personal behalf, sir, I extend a very warm welcome to you. I also welcome, take this opportunity to welcome all my other brother and sister advocates, also senior mediator, Mr. Prashant Chandra, who is logged in and my other colleagues, including Mr. Renuka Radhya, who is the HCGP, the Kumar MN, who is a CGC, a lot of faculty members, a lot of academicians, law students. I welcome one and all. Over to you, your Lordships. Good evening, Mr. Vikas. Good evening, Mr. Tharvikram. And good evening, esteemed viewers. I deem it a great privilege to join this platform. Mr. Vikas has been doing human service through this platform to educate lawyers, the general public, law students, and all those who are interested in knowing different dimensions of law. Friends, I was a sessions judge for almost 17 and a half years before being elevated as a judge of the High Court of Karnataka. I was conducting criminal cases also as a lawyer while I was working in the imofisal court. With my experience as a judge, I feel that most of the lawyers conducting criminal cases are not much focusing on these, on this aspect, general exceptions. Mr. Vikas has just observed that it is a fascinating aspect in criminal law. Not only a fascinating aspect it is, but also a relevant aspect in criminal justice system. All those who are conducting criminal cases must endeavour to know deeply about the general exceptions found in Chapter 4 of Indian Penal Court. Sections 76 to 106 of IPC make an offense a non-offence. This is the beauty of section 76 to 106. All offenses are defined in CPC. And the general exceptions found in Chapter 4 wide section 76 to 106 make an offense non-offence. The general exceptions enacted by IPC are universal application, are of universal application and for the sake of brevity of expression. Instead of repeating in every section that the definition is to be taken subject to the exceptions, the legislature in its wisdom by sections 6 of IPC has enacted that all the definitions in IPC must be regarded as a subject to the general exceptions. Hence, general exceptions are part of definition of a very offense contained in IPC. But with a caveat, the burden is upon the person who takes the plea of private any defense under the general exceptions. Therefore, it is relevant to have a view about section 6. What does section 6 say? Definitions in the court to be understood subject to exceptions. Throughout this code, this code means Indian penal code. Every definition of an offense, every penal provision and every illustration of every such definition or penal provision shall be understood subject to the exceptions contained in the chapter entitled general exceptions. Though these exceptions are repeated in such definition, penal provision or illustration. So, section 6 itself provides that all the offenses defined under CPC are subject to the general exceptions. Friends, now what are those 76 to 106, section 76 to 106 of IPC speak about general exceptions. So, they can be easily categorized into seven groups. Group one, mistake of fact. It is covered under section 76 to 79, 76 and 79. Judicial acts, section 77 and 78. Accident, section 80. Absence of criminal intent, sections 81 to 86, 92 to 94. Consent, sections 87 to 91. Trifling acts, section 95. And private defense, it is covered under sections 96 to 106. Now, absence, I will just at the cost of repetition. Probably I might have already brought to your notice one incident in a case which was brought before me while I was the session stated would be with regard to the absence of criminal intent. A young well-built man of 35 years was brought before me. He was in judicial custody. The charge against him was that he had without there being any sudden and grave provocation hit his father on his head with an wooden slab, wooden piece as a result of the same, he fell down and breathed his last. This was witnessed by his own mother. That means the wife of the deceased. When she raised the alarm, the neighbors came running there. So, this was the offense. He was charged and brought before me. I explained to him the grave offense stated to have been committed by him. He had pleaded, he had not pleaded guilty and had claimed to be tried. As a result of the same, I had to summon the witnesses. The first witness was none other than his own mother, who was the eyewitness. So, she came before the court. She promptly deposed in her examination in chief as to what has happened. She had deposed that there was no sudden and grave provocation. There was some exchange of words between the father and the son. Suddenly, he took a wooden piece and hit on his head as a result of which he fell down. But during the course of the examination in chief, she had volunteered that soon after he fell down, her husband fell down. The son went into the kitchen and brought a pot with boiling rice and poured on his, on the stomach of the deceased and went and slept in the room. Of course, this was not to be found anywhere in the charge sheet. The learned counsel appearing for the evidence was a young boy. Probably it was his first criminal case, the two case of murder. He was finding very difficult during the course of cross examination to elicit anything in favor of his client. It was very difficult and I thought, you know, the accused, the accused and the witness were all heuristic villagers. The normal presumption is that heuristic villager will always speak the truth, will not attempt to sue it in a manner so that it could be otherwise and he was not getting anything. Then at that time, exactly when this was going on, the accused who was in the accused dock, he was turning his right, left, up and down. He was behaving in an unusual manner for almost 10 minutes and I was closely observing from the, from my seat and suddenly I stopped the recording of evidence and asked the advocate, learned advocate as to whether he had seen the unusual behavior of his client. He said, no sir. I put a simple question to him as to whether he had made any evaluation of his client. He said, no sir, nobody had come. I told him that it is true that nobody had come because it was a case of family incident. At least you should have examined him as about his mental faculty. He said, no. Then I asked the mother who was in the witness box. Why your son is behaving like this in the court hall, even in a small criminal case of section 323 or 324, accused will be very anxious to know what the witnesses are deposing and why he is so concerned. He said, she said in Canada, that means his head is not all right. So suddenly I understood something is wrong. Then I asked one advocate who knows because the colloquial language used in the Karawali, in the coastal line is, a man has some mental problems. Then I stopped. It was already 145. I asked the advocate, see come by 3 o'clock with an application, probably section 329 or 5pc, make an application. I will put few questions. So promptly he filed an application and I evaluated the mother by putting 4 or 5 questions and into one of the questions she shared at times her son would be so angry if she were to delay giving him food for 5 minutes, he would throw away the food plate on somebody. So then I thought there must be some serious mental problem. I recorded and my reasons as to why he needed a thorough psychiatric evaluation and sent him to be evaluated by a government medical, a big government medical general hospital at Mangalore. He was within 15 days I got a report that he was suffering from serious hallucination and deletion and he, the doctor, the psychiatrist had opined that they accused needed treatment in Nimhans at Bangalore, a premier institute treating persons suffering from serious mental illness throughout in the whole of India. Accordingly I referred and after 3 months he was treated by one of the then finest psychiatrist, Dr. C. R. Chandrasekhar and he had referred the accused with the report that he was able to stand the trial and ultimately the trial went on. In fact, I helped the learned advocate to cross-examine the doctor who had made an evaluation and I put a question on behalf of the court itself under section 165 of the Evidence Act which enables a court to put any question to any witness at any point of time whether relevant or relevant and ask for production of documents. The doctor promptly told that it was a very chronic case, probably it was undiagnosed and undetected and untreated and therefore giving benefit available under section 84 of RPC. I acquitted him section 84 state if a person has done any committed any offense without knowing the legal consequences of the same he would be entitled for benefit under the general exceptions particularly section 84. Why I am highlighting this is that probably he was a young advocate he had no much exposure on conducting criminal cases but what would have been if I was not diligent enough to observe his unusual movements unusual say movements in the court therefore lawyers conducting criminal cases must try to first evaluate their clients and find out whether anything because it is ultimately the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If for any reason the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt the accused must also try as to whether he could defend he or she could defend his client for benefit under the general exceptions under the general exceptions. I was a sessions judge at Mandia it is also a district headquarters a young advocate who was mostly conducting criminal civil appeals he was a he was a pure civil lawyer and one day he by about 12 30 or 1 o'clock he started arguing a criminal case I jokingly told him Mr. Basuraj why how are you that you are arguing a criminal case you are always a civil lawyer you conduct only civil cases he told me that this is a case from my native place therefore they had sent they were all poor people all the accused had been convicted for offense punishable under section 326 of IPC means causing grievous hurt with the deadly weapon so the case was that accused number 125 had trespassed into the land of PW1 and had the accused number one had a sickle in his hand and all of them trespassed into the land and committed writing and accused number two held accused number one PW1 and accused number one assaulted as a result of the same one of the fingers of the right hand had been fractured so then this was the gist of the case then I was just looking to the medical evidence as whether I could convert this case into a case for offense punishable under section 324 of IPC so that I can impose confirm the conviction and confirm the sentence of fine of rupees 5000 and let them but the evidence the criminal the medical evidence was quite clear about the fracture and the alignment of the bone being disrupted so there was no cause I was just going through the when he was arguing I was just going through the evidence of PW1 by the time it was 2 o'clock I told him come by 3 o'clock and think whether you have any defense intersection sections 96206 of IPC general defense but soon after taking foot in my chamber I just went through seriously went through the evidence of PW1 what was the case was the mother of accused number one had availed some financial loan from PW1 and he was unable to pay the interest for them as a result of the same the mother of PW1 had handed over this land so that PW1 could use that land and get use of the practice and use the same in lieu of or instead of the interest he was expected to his mother was expected to give in the entire evidence there was it was in respect of an agricultural land there was there was no revenue record stating that PW1 was in position of the point upon land at any point of time no RTC that is revenue tenancy certificate RTC record of rights had not been produced and there was absolutely no evidence to even peripherally show that the land in question belonging to the mother of accused number one had been handed over to PW1 then I said it's a very clear case of granting relief under the private defense because being the son of the original owner he was entitled to repel the interference of anybody so PW1 was really an outsider he the case ultimately reflected that PW1 wanted to interfere with the possession of the land of the mother of accused number one and therefore accused number one was entitled to repel the same and any injury inflicted by him as a result of the same would cover under the private defense I dictated in the open court and accused all the and recruited all the accused and of course I just went through some of the decisions which were found in the footnote of section 96 to 104 and that's how therefore because he was a very good advocate on the civil side but he had no exposure on criminal side so well whenever when ever advocate takes up a criminal case he must also see as to whether there is any chance of getting him some relief under the general exceptions in case the prosecution were to prove the case with this background friends I would like to take as to how this is to be dealt with because general exceptions court cannot presume general exceptions whoever takes up the defense under the general exceptions that is found in section 76 to 106 the burden is always upon the accused because section 105 of the evidence act specifically mandates that whoever takes up the defense under the general exception the burden is always upon the person taking up the same in a criminal case where there are no special provisions with regard to the burden of proof the burden is always the general burden is always upon the prosecution to prove that the accused has committed the offense in question beyond all reasonable doubt what is reasonable doubt nowhere it is explained in evidence act sorry no way it is found in these sections of evidence act then how do we how have we been applying this concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt it's a question if even if you even if you see section three of the evidence act you do not see anything about this concept see we have all inherited the Anglo-Saxon law the English law they were our masters so the courts in England have had been applying this principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt and that is also brought into our criminal jurisprudence in India and as a result of the same we have been applying and in one of the leading judgments I request all the advocates to keep this in mind and read this judgment a year 1988 a year 1988 sc supreme court page 2451 state of UP versus Krishna Gopal this is an eloquent judgment authored by justice M N Venkata Chalaya at that point of time of the supreme court who ultimately became finally became the chief justice one of the celebrated chief justices with India he has eloquently explained this concept and this decision in Krishna Gopal has been referred to in subsequent cases so therefore the burden is always upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused but so far as the general exceptions even accused were to take the defense protection if you were to take protection under the general defense burden is always upon him under section 105 but how to prove that burden whether the same burden as he is cast upon the prosecution is to be followed no it can be it can be proved by mere preponderance of probabilities friends probably at the cost of repetition I tell you what is preponderance of probability and what is proof of proof beyond reasonable doubt all civil cases the benchmark for evaluating the evidence is preponderance of probabilities what a normal man or a normal man would come to a conclusion under the set of circumstances but in a criminal case it is also preponderance of probabilities but on a higher degree of preponderance of probabilities which we call it as proof beyond reasonable doubt friends I would like all of you to know about a very important judgment of the supreme court reported in 2010 second volume SCC triple three 2010 two second volume SCC triple three Darshan Singh versus state of Punjab it is authored by the then jet justice Dalveer Bhandari who is presently the judge of international court of justice he has authored many judgments all of you know one of the judgments is with regard to the scope of section 438 of CRPC Siddharam of Pamhatri's case you know it's a leading judgment of the supreme court on section 438 referring to various earlier decisions of the supreme court justice Dalveer Bhandari in paragraph 58 of the judgment has summed up and highlighted the principles with regard to self-defense before highlighting and mute agide because sir I think you should give the option to serve inadvertently mute that was muted so because that would entrain what would at least give sir option sir you have option because unmute my video okay I'm audible and visible yes please okay okay so in in one of the uh normally normally the trend of the courts it's very difficult to accept the plea of private defense the the courts because if the prosecution is able to prove and since the burden of proving such defense is upon the uh is upon the uh accused this will not be usually accepted but in one of the judgments of the Karnataka High Court reported in 1991 SCC online Karnataka 570 1991 SCC online Karnataka 570 Shivappa Lakshman Savadhi Shivappa Lakshman Savadhi versus state of Karnataka it is a division bench decision of the honorable high court of Karnataka it's an eloquent judgment I request all of you to uh uh study this judgment and you will now then understand what is the scope of the private defense in in a village the incident in question happened on 18th December 1988 at about 8 30 p.m one boy of 18 years was uh carrying some goods in a bullock cart and on the way by the side of the road the hate stopped and the bullocks attached to the cart ate some uh standing crop the owner of the land got wild he came running near the bullock cart and scolded the driver of the bullock cart as to why he allowed his bullocks to eat the crop then the boy went along with his cart and he intimated his owners who were at a distance the boy and the two owners came running on their bicycles near the herd top the accused that the owner of the land and the accused could see all these three persons coming in cycle speedily so he went inside the hut and took out an axe which had a wooden handle of about two to three feet the moment they came near him he assaulted them with their with his axe and he inflicted a severe injury on one of the three persons mr keshav he sustained severe bleeding injuries and another person was also injured suddenly after hearing the alarm two witnesses came they're running and the injured were immediately shifted uh in a tractor uh to athani which was about eight or ten kilometers the statement of another injured who had also sustained a grievous injury was recorded by the police and at their instance as the injury was injuries were severe they were asked to take to a higher medical institution and accordingly a chief was arranged and they were taken to mirage which was a which is a very big city in Maharashtra providing medical reliefs by the time they came near the hospital keshav was dead other another person who was already injured he was also treated the charge sheet was filed and as you know there was there is there was one witness who was also injured he's an eyewitness so the normal presumption is that the injured will not leave out the real assailant in order to rope in persons unconnected with the offense the trial court promptly convicted they accused uh to undergo imprisonment for life and the same was challenged before the honorable high court of karnataka and as such the matter came up before the division bench is this pk shamsundar is the author of that eloquent judgment so i don't know whether any defense of private defense was taken on behalf of the accused in the trial court but the learned advocate appearing for the accused that is the appellants in the high court had taken up the plea of private defense and what was the private defense the accused is a member belonging to a backward caste the persons who had come on their bicycles were members of a majority community they had lands surrounding the small holding of this accused and they were making efforts to dispose of sim and take his that was a piece land and that attempts had been were being made many a times by the pw one and the deceased and their family members who belong to the majority community so this theory of self and as a result of the same the accused entertained an honest belief that they were coming to murder him so as long as the accused entertained a bona fide belief of danger to his life and liberty life and limbs he was entitled to act to defend himself and if in the event he has caused the death it would come under the self defense private defense as contemplated under section 104 of IPC ultimately the honorable high court of karnataka gave benefit to the accused under the private defense and acquitted so it's a wonderful eloquent judgment in that judgment you find many decisions as to the burden of proof on the accused who takes up the plea of defense and the question is whether the whether this defense should have been taken in the trial court no even if no defense is taken up private defense is taken up either cross examining the witnesses for the accused witnesses of the prosecution or if no such defense is taken up in his exam in the in his or had their examination under section 313 of CRPC still from the materials available and record if the accused can take up the plea of private defense there is no legal inhibition therefore even if such a plea is not taken up in by the accused in the trial court such a plea of private defense can be taken up in the appeal with the only caveat that the accused will have to prove the same and the burden of proof is consistent with section 105 of evidence act friends I would like to bring to your notice one one very very important judgment of the supreme court reported in 1976 volume 4 SCC 394 Lakshmi Singh and others was just state of Bihar I don't want to go in in detail to the facts of the case ultimately what is the law retreated this a judgment authored by justice partially is that if in a criminal case the prosecution has failed to prove the injuries sustained by the accused it would be an important factor on behalf of the accused so the injuries would speak according to the honorable supreme court as to who was the aggressor probably PW1 might have been might have sustained a grievous injury say punishable under section 324 of IPC accused might have only sustained simple injuries as contemplated under section 324 of IPC if ultimately it is probabilized by the accused that the witness or witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution were the aggressors then the benefit of doubt could be given under section under the private defense in paragraph 18 of the set judgment decision it is held as follows quote thus in view of the inherent improbabilities the serious omissions and informities the interested or inimical nature of the evidence and other circumstances pointed out to bias we are clearly of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt normally this court that is the apex court does not interfere in an appeal by specially with concurrent finding of fact but this is one of those cases where judgment of the high court is manifestly perverse and where the high court has not considered important circumstances which completely demolish the prosecution case in fact the high court has hardly made any real attempt to analyze is or discuss the evidence and has merely upon the finding of the session jet by narrating the evidence relied upon by it we have already pointed out that on one of the most important points arising in a criminal case namely non-explanation of the injuries of the person of the accused by the prosecution the high court has not only committed an error an error of fact but an error of law by showing a lack of proper appreciation of the principles decided by the Scott ultimately what we can say is if the if there is if the witnesses are inimically disposed towards the accused and there the the court will have to be very skeptical and cautious with regard to their version and such version will have to be taken with a pinch of salt particularly when the accused themselves are sustained injuries let us assume in your neighbor house by about say midnight there is an alarm somebody is crying you will see somebody has already trespassed there into their house and they have been held captive and you take something you know you have a gun you you come back to your house and you have a say pistol licensed pistol and if to save those innocent persons who have already been kept taken captive and being injured and if you shoot at them it would not because you are trying to save persons who have been inflicting say either either trying to commit their murder or causing serious injuries to their limbs so under such circumstances it would not be an offense because it would be a non offense because of this general exceptions. Lastly friends coming to the Darshan Singh case decided by the honorable high court bondable supreme court that is just Dalveer Bandari 10 points have been clearly enunciated I will just quote paragraph 58 self-preservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognized by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilized countries all free democratic and civilized countries recognize the right of private defense within certain reasonable limits because it is the duty of every state to protect their citizens but at the same time if a citizen is being attacked by somebody without there being any reason so then during such course the the such innocent person need to be protected the right of private defense is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting and impending danger and not creation that means there must be a reasonable apprehension of danger to the life and liberty and as long as that persists using the private defense and retaliation would be justified and what the the k-weight put is is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting and impending danger and not self-creation friends these sections 76 to 106 one important section is section 99 which specifically states that acts against which there is no private defense for example if a police officer armed by a warrant issued by a court criminal court comes to you one's house to arrest somebody the two in a uniform he cannot have any retaliation to the police officer if the police officer uses the extra force then what was required then only repulsion could be there therefore the private the general exceptions will have is has a k-weight in section 99 three a mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defense into operation in other words it is not necessary that there should be an actual commission of the offense in order to give price to the right of private defense it is enough if they accused apprehended that such an offense is contemplated and it is likely to be committed if the right of private defense is not exercised that is this is what this principle was applied by the honorable high court of karnataka in laxmana shiva pa laxmana savadish case because the the the apprehension entertained by the accused that there would be danger to his life and limb because he the manner in which all these three persons came running on with speedily in their motor bicycles to his house he had already entertained an apprehension and that apprehension was valid fourth one the right of private defense commences as soon as reasonable apprehension arises and it is co-terminous with the duration of such apprehension that means the moment that apprehension goes no retaliation should take place it is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defense step by step with any earth mathematical exactitude in private defense the force used by the accused are not to be only disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection of the person of the property it is well settled that even if the accused does not plead defense self-defense it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record that means if for any reason during the evaluation of the evidence the learner judge comes to the conclusion that the that right of private defense is made out not withstanding the fact that the council for the accused has pleaded even then the court can give the relief under the general exceptions that particularly the private defense let us assume that the advocate for the accused has not pleaded at all but during the course of writing judgment and after evaluating the evidence the judge come to the country this is a fit case in which the private defense could be given it could be given it is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self-defense it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record the accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defense beyond reasonable doubt it is enough if he proves it on the basis of preponderance probabilities the penal code confers the right of private defense only when the unlawful or unwrongful act is in effect a person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self-defense inflict any harm even extending death on his asylum either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened probably I still I go back to my college days when my teacher who was dealing with criminal IPC had just asked whether the jailer who executes a convict on the warrant of the execution issued by the court which convicted him would be a murder because he is also see he is executing so we were all because we were not quite prepared to say as to what to do so this is a case though he is executing he is executing the orders of a court though ultimately it leads to the death of that person it would not be a murder that is also covered because it's a judicial act that's a judicial act friends I don't want to go to the nuances of the general exceptions and particularly the private difference I have brought to your notice few instances so that you will catch up with the well-liked principles please read general exceptions thoroughly and try to apply wherever it is possible let us assume that you fail in proving the private defense but ultimately the prosecution is expected to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the prosecution just because you have taken up the plea of self-defense the prosecution is not relieved of its initial responsibility of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt this is what I have felt that I should convey I'm extremely grateful to Mr. Vikas Chhatrat for giving me an opportunity I once again congratulating for doing wonderful and human service to the legal field through his platform and he has not only roped in persons connected with law he has roped in other persons interdisciplinary to deal with interdisciplinary subjects of law I once again congratulate Mr. Vikram for supporting him thank you viewers if you have any one or two questions I can just try to answer before we go to the question and answer session I would like to welcome Mr. Chandigushan the Deputy Solicitor General of PDR for Karnataka sir I would request you to speak a few words but after that we will take up the Q&A session Chandigushan sir we are noting him Chandigushan you'd also like to thank Natharaju B. Advocate who has shared all the judgments which sir was discussing during his erudite session Mr. Shanti, Shanti Kushan ji I will just take as to whether there is any question I will take it from the you then by you yeah meanwhile we take up the Q&A session post that I think you will give him an opportunity this is by Ushmishra should private defense be exercised in proportion to the imminent danger no no in fact Justice Dalveer Bandari has just settled there cannot be any mathematical precision it all depends upon the reasonable apprehension that the accused entertains if he entertains a reasonable apprehension that he is he will be murdered though not ultimately he may not be murdered or a very serious injury be inflicted upon him still he can exercise the private defense there cannot be any mathematical precision in this data that's what exactly said it is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defense step by step within her mathematical exactitude in fact I request all of you to read Darshan Singh's case of Justice Dalveer Bandari because he has referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court on various aspect and has ultimately called out the principles found therein. So there is no question on the YouTube also. I have a question sir made it very clear that though the defense of private difference is not taken during the course of trial it could be taken perhaps during the subsequent appeal or the revision stage yes we have any judicial precedents for this. No I don't know whether it was argued in this Lakshman sir I have not come across anything in fact please take in my own case it would be it was I who took up that help to took up that defense and helped the London Council appearing for the accused as a result of which he could get convicted say ultimately see the role of a judge the role of the court is to find out the truth lawyers being the officers of the court assist the court the duty of the prosecution is not to get a conviction is it not the the duty of an advocate appearing for an accused to defend him somehow but so far as the duty of a prosecution prosecutor is concerned to place all the materials before the court and enable the court to take an appropriate conclusion therefore the court has a greater responsibility and therefore if even if it is not pleaded and if for any for any reason the court were to come to a conclusion that this is the fit case in which the plea of self-defense could be given and suppose let us assume the prosecution goes in appeal or revision the appellate court or the court should not have given this defense on its own it will not be accepted the in fact the duty of the court will be appreciated for the last question we are taking one has asked for the citation of Darshan Singh I will ask someone to share it and could you just Jawad says could you just give the section 99 explanation 99 yes 99 is a caveat in the sense act second is which there is no private defense I just gave you an example a police officer has come to arrest somebody armed with a warrant warrant of arrest issued by a court so if he comes to house and he wants to catch him and take away it cannot be found fault with though it appeared though it appears to him that he was interfering with his life and liberty in the in the in the meantime if for any reason the police were to exercise right beyond contemplated then it can be referred yes sir the last question whether the plea of private defense need not be taken in trial court but should suggestions be mandatory given to it in the cross examination no no no no if it is if it is taken in the cross examination it is well and good even if it is not taken from the materials on record if during the course of submission of argument the learned counsel for the accused comes to a conclusion that a private defense is made out he can present it and that can be presented even in an appeal without having taken such a plea in the trial court appeal or revision Mr. Vikram has already asked a question on this. Thank you sir for sharing knowledge and thank you for the insightful sessions from your side and thank you Dr. Vikram for connecting with such wonderful persons who are good human beings as well as good resources thank you. Stay safe. Thank you so much.