Does s.100 IPC require the assailant to intend a punishable offence?

No. It is enough that the assault fits one of s.100’s listed situations such as abduction or grievous hurt.

How is “abduction” understood in s.100 IPC?

It uses the meaning from s.362 IPC and need not be a separately punishable type to trigger s.100.

What did the Supreme Court finally decide?

The Court acquitted the appellant and held that the act did not exceed the right of private defence under s.100 IPC.

Vishwanath v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1960)

Q: What if only one blow is used but death results?

Courts examine necessity and proportionality. A single necessary blow can still be lawful self-defence.

Right of Private Defence · Single knife blow · Family dispute at night · s.100 IPC

Supreme Court of India

India

1960 (AIR 67)

Author: Gulzar Hashmi

~4 min read

Criminal Law · IPC §100

CASE_TITLE PRIMARY_KEYWORDS SECONDARY_KEYWORDS PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-02

CASE_TITLE	Vishwanath v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1960)
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS	Right of Private Defence, IPC §100, Single Blow, Abduction Clause, Supreme Court of India
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS	Proportionality, Reasonable Apprehension, Family Dispute, Self-Defence India, AIR 1960 SC 67
AUTHOR_NAME	Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION	India
SLUG	vishwanath-v-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-1960
PUBLISH_DATE	2025-11-02

Timeline graphic for Vishwanath v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1960)

Quick Summary

A late-night quarrel over taking the wife back turned violent. On a call by his father, the appellant used a pocket knife once. The blow sadly hit the heart and the man died. The Supreme Court held that the act stayed within the right of private defence under s.100 IPC in the circumstances; only one necessary blow was given. Conviction was set aside.

Issues

Did the appellant exceed the right of private defence of the person?

Rules (Easy English)

Section 100 IPC: A person may cause death in self-defence if the assault fits any of the six listed types (e.g., fear of death or grievous hurt, rape, kidnapping/abduction, etc.).

No special intent of assailant needed: The assault need not be an offence by its intention in every case. What matters is that it falls within s.100’s listed situations.

“Abduction” meaning: In s.100’s fifth clause, abduction has the meaning in s.362 IPC. It need not be a punishable variety to claim the protection of s.100.

Facts (Timeline)

Family Setup

Gopal (deceased) was married to the appellant’s sister. The appellant (Vishwanath) lived with his father Badri in a railway quarter at Gorakhpur; relatives lived nearby.

Strained Relations

Gopal shifted homes due to differences with his in-laws. His wife stayed with her father; Badri and Vishwanath supported her decision not to go with Gopal.

Gopal’s Plan

After getting a job, Gopal wanted to take his wife back. He gathered help and went to Badri’s quarter at about 10 p.m. on 11 June 1953.

Forcible Taking

During arguments inside, Gopal pulled his reluctant wife towards the door. She clutched the doorway and resisted leaving.

The Stab

Badri told the appellant to beat Gopal. Vishwanath took out a pocket knife and gave one stab. It pierced the heart; efforts to revive failed, and Gopal died on the way to hospital.

Trial & Appeals

Sessions Court: act within private defence—acquittal for murder. High Court: set aside; imposed 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment. Vishwanath appealed to the Supreme Court.

Arguments

State (Appellant in SC)

Knife use was excessive; no immediate danger of death or grievous hurt.
Taking the wife back was a domestic dispute, not a s.100 situation.
Conviction by the High Court should stand.

Vishwanath (Respondent in SC)

There was force and resistance at night; the act was to protect the girl and family.
Only one blow was given—no more harm than necessary.
s.100 IPC covers assaults including abduction-like taking; protection applies.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Held: the appellant did not inflict more harm than necessary; it was a single defensive blow.
Result: Acquittal—covered by the right of private defence under s.100 IPC.

Ratio (Core Principle)

If an assault falls within s.100 IPC, the defender may cause death to repel it. The assault need not carry a separate punishable intent. The expression abduction in s.100 takes its plain meaning from s.362 IPC. Where only the minimum necessary force is used—like a single defensive blow—private defence stands.

Why It Matters

Clarifies the reach of s.100 IPC in fast-moving, domestic settings.
Explains proportionality and the “single blow” context.
Useful for exam hypotheticals on self-defence and abduction-like situations.

Key Takeaways

s.100 IPC applies if the assault fits listed situations; special intent of assailant is not essential.
Proportionality: One necessary blow may still be lawful defence.
Abduction meaning: s.362 definition is enough; need not be separately punishable.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “ONE BLOW = JUST DEFENCE”

See an assault within s.100.
Use only needed force.
Stand protected—law accepts necessary defence.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Did the appellant exceed the right of private defence?

Rule: s.100 IPC allows causing death to repel certain assaults; no special punishable intent of assailant required; “abduction” as in s.362.

Application: Night scuffle; woman forcibly pulled; one defensive stab delivered to stop the act; no excess beyond what seemed necessary in the moment.

Conclusion: Act covered by private defence; acquittal justified.

Glossary

Right of Private Defence: Legal right to protect person/body; in s.100 IPC it can extend to causing death in listed situations.
Proportionality: Force used should not exceed what is reasonably necessary.
Abduction (s.362): Compelling or inducing a person to move from a place by force or deceit.
Single-Blow Cases: Cases where one strike causes death; courts check necessity and intent.