Exception 2 to Section 300 of the IPC reads as follows:-
“Exception 2. – Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, inthe exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.”
(i) The existence of good faith is a must before the accused claims benefit of this exception. While acting in good faith, if the accused has exceeded the right of self-defence and caused death of a person without pre-meditation and further he had no intention to causing more harm than was necessary for the purpose of the defence although in fact more harm was caused, yet the benefit of Exception 2 to Section 300 may be available if the accused was not the aggressor.
(ii) The presence of good faith as given in sec 52 IPC refers to actions done in the absence of due care and attention. In this instance, inflicting a murderous assault with a deadly weapon upon the unarmed deceased and subsequently continuing to beat him, even when the deceased fell to the ground, provides a clear indication that the accused had not acted in good faith and had the intention of causing more harm than was necessary.
(iii) Another essential for invoking Exception 2 is the lack of pre-meditation. Such pre-meditation may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence, such as previous threats, expression of ill feelings, acts of preparation to kill, etc. It is clear from the facts, that the accused was already bearing a knife when he arrived on the scene after his father called him.
(iv) The burden of proving self-defence is always on the accused but it is not as onerous as the one which lies with the prosecution. Such burden can be discharged by probablising the defence. The accused 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 defence evidence.
(v) The principle as laid down by Section 105 Evidence Act is provided as-
“105. Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.—When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code (XLV of1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.”
(vi) The Supreme Court in K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1962 SC 605, laid down
“…But when an accused relies upon the general exceptions in the Indian Penal Code or on any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the Penal Code, or in any law defining an offence, Section 105 of the Evidence Act raises a presumption against the accused and also throws a burden on him to rebutthe said presumption. Under that Section the Court shall presume the absence of circumstances bringing the19case within any of the exceptions, that is, the court shall regard the non-existence of such circumstances as proved till they are disproved. An illustration based on the facts of the present case may bring out the meaning of the said provision. The prosecution alleges that the accused intentionally shot the deceased; but the accused pleads that, though the shots emanated from his revolver and hit the deceased, it was by accident,that is, the shots went off the revolver in the course of a struggle in the circumstances mentioned in Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code and hit the deceased resulting in his death. The court then shall presume the absence of circumstances bringing the case within the provisions of Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code,that is, it shall presume that the shooting was not by accident, and that the other circumstances bringing the case within the exception did not exist; but this presumption may be rebutted by the accused by adducing evidence to support his plea of accident in the circumstances mentioned therein. This presumption may also be rebutted by admissions made or circumstances elicited by the evidence led by the prosecution or by the combined effect of such circumstance and the evidence adduced by the accused. But the Section does not in anyway affect the burden that lies on the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the offence with which the accused is charged : that burden nevershifts….”
(vii) In Munshi Ram & Others v. Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1968 SC 702, the Supreme Court has observed that
“5. …It is well settled that even if an accused does not plead self defence, it is open to the court to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record — see In re Jogali BhaigoNaiks [AIR 1927 Mad 97] . The burden of establishing that plea is on the accused and that burden can be discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record.”
(viii_ As outlined in the aforementioned authorities, the court presumes the absence of circumstances that would justify a defense claim, but this presumption can be rebutted by the accused. Courts have consistently upheld the principle that even if private-defense is not formally pleaded, it may still be considered based on the material available on record, with the accused bearing the responsibility to substantiate it. In the present case, however, given the facts presented, it is difficult to establish the defense of private defense. The circumstances do not support a reasonable apprehension of imminent danger that would justify the actions of the accused, making it challenging to sustain the claim of self-defense.