Can an owner use dangerous devices to keep out trespassers?

No. The occupier must not set traps likely to cause serious injury. Such conduct is rash/negligent and can attract IPC §304A if death occurs.

Do warnings or lights make a lethal wire lawful?

No. Visibility does not reveal lethal voltage. A bare high-voltage wire across a passage remains an unlawful, dangerous trap.

Does private defence of property justify this act?

No. Sections 99 and 103 IPC limit the right. Lethal traps exceed permissible force and are not protected.

What did the Supreme Court finally decide?

It upheld liability under IPC §304A and dismissed the appeal. Setting a high-voltage bare wire was rash and negligent.

Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar (1964)

Q: What is the official citation for exams?

AIR 1964 SC 205 (Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar).

IPC 304A · Traps & Trespassers · Limits of Private Defence · Lethal Electric Wire

Supreme Court of India

India

1964 (AIR 1964 SC 205)

Author: Gulzar Hashmi

~5 min read

Criminal Law · Negligence · IPC §304A

CASE_TITLE PRIMARY_KEYWORDS SECONDARY_KEYWORDS PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-02

CASE_TITLE	Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar (1964)
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS	IPC §304A, Negligence, Trespasser Duty, Traps, Private Defence Limits
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS	Man-traps, Spring-guns Analogy, Electric Wire, Section 97, Section 99, Section 103
AUTHOR_NAME	Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION	India
SLUG	cherubin-gregory-v-state-of-bihar-1964
PUBLISH_DATE	2025-11-02

Timeline graphic for Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar (1964)

Quick Summary

A neighbour kept using the accused’s toilet after warnings. To stop intruders, the accused stretched a naked live wire across the approach. The woman touched it while leaving and died. The Supreme Court held that owners cannot set traps likely to cause serious injury, even to trespassers. The act was rash and negligent under IPC §304A. Appeal dismissed.

Issues

Is the accused liable for causing death by a rash or negligent act under IPC §304A?

Rules (Easy English)

Owner’s limits: A landowner may protect property, but cannot inflict personal injury by direct violence or by indirect devices that he knows are likely to cause serious harm.

Traps doctrine: Even against trespassers, the occupier must not set man-traps, spring-guns, or equivalent deadly devices.

Private defence (IPC §§97, 99, 103): Defence of property does not extend to lethal traps in the circumstances of this case.

Facts (Timeline)

Neighbour Uses Toilet

Deceased (Madilen) used the accused’s toilet for a week as her own had a fallen wall.

Oral Warnings

Accused objected, but she continued to use the toilet.

Deadly Deterrent

Accused stretched a naked copper wire with high voltage across the passage—no warning signs.

Entry & Exit

She entered without touching the wire. While exiting, her hand touched it; she suffered a fatal shock.

Trial & Appeal

Sessions Judge: convicted under §304A. High Court (Patna): conviction and sentence considered; defence invoked §§97, 99. Matter reached Supreme Court.

Arguments

State (Prosecution)

Lethal wire was a trap; foreseeable serious harm even to a trespasser.
No signage; light does not reveal electricity risk.
Private defence of property does not justify deadly set-ups.

Accused (Defence)

Victim was a trespasser; warnings were given.
Place was lit; wire could be seen.
Action taken to protect property under §§97, 103 IPC.

Judgment

Court rejected the private defence claim; §§99 and 103 did not extend to such injury.
High voltage through a naked wire is lethal and not a valid “warning”.
Setting a deadly device is rash/negligent—conviction under IPC §304A sustained.
Appeal dismissed.

Ratio (Core Principle)

An occupier owes a basic duty not to set traps designed to cause bodily harm—even against trespassers. Property defence does not justify lethal, concealed hazards. Doing so is a rash and negligent act punishable under IPC §304A.

Why It Matters

Sets clear limits on private defence of property.
Confirms the traps doctrine in Indian criminal law.
Guides cases involving electric fences/wires and similar hazards.

Key Takeaways

No deadly traps: Even trespassers are protected from man-trap–like devices.
Warning ≠ safety: Visibility of a wire does not reveal lethal voltage.
IPC §304A fits: Reckless set-up causing death is rash/negligent.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “NO TRAPS, EVEN FOR TRESPASS”

Foresee harm from hidden/lethal devices.
Forbid deadly traps—defence has limits.
File under §304A when death results.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Liability under IPC §304A for a death caused by a live wire trap?

Rule: Owners cannot directly/indirectly do acts likely to cause serious injury to trespassers; traps are forbidden; private defence limited by §§99, 103.

Application: High-voltage bare wire across a pathway created a lethal risk without warning; death ensued; hazard was deliberate and reckless.

Conclusion: Rash and negligent act; conviction under §304A proper; appeal dismissed.

Glossary

IPC §304A: Causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.
Traps Doctrine: Rule that an occupier must not use devices likely to cause serious harm to trespassers.
Private Defence (Property): Limited right to protect property; does not sanction lethal booby-traps.
Foreseeability: Ability to anticipate that conduct may cause harm; key in negligence analysis.

FAQs

No. The occupier must not set traps likely to cause serious harm—this breaches basic duty and leads to liability, including under IPC §304A if death occurs.

No. Light may show a wire, but not its lethal voltage. A deadly set-up is still rash and negligent despite warnings or visibility.

No. §§99 and 103 IPC limit defence. Lethal traps exceed permissible force in the facts of this case.

The Supreme Court upheld liability under IPC §304A; the appeal was dismissed.

AIR 1964 SC 205 (Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar).