Accused pleading Self Defence doesnt require to prove beyond reasonable doubt: Supreme Court

Written bby Shruti Sharma

Recently in the case of Ex. Ct. Mahadev vs Director General Border Security Force (SC) 551 in which Supreme court has stated accused who takes up the plea of self defence need not prove it beyond reasonable doubt and if the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea, just as in a civil case.
The accused who allegedly killed the civilian named Nandan Deb was held guilty under Section 302 of IPC.The appellant pleaded that he was forced to use his right to private defence to save his life when accosted with assailants carrying weapons apprehending an imminent and perceptible threat to his life, the appellant fired at him which the High Court and GSFC had rejected outrightly.
the main issue which arose whether the litigant was qualified for practice the right of private protection.
Thereafter the court observed :
a) The nature of self protection is implanted in the DNA of each and every individual which comes in Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC and comes under Chapter IV that deals with General Exceptions. Whether an individual has truly acted in exercise of the right of protection given a specific set of realities and conditions, would rely upon the subtleties of each case.
b)Need of deflecting a looming peril is the center standards for practicing such a right Section 100 IPC .To guarantee such a right, the charged should have the option to show that the conditions were to such an extent that there existed a sensible ground to capture that he would experience grevious hurt that would try and cause demise. Section 100 and 101 IPC characterize the conditions wherein the right of private protection of the body stretches out to causing death or inflicting damage other other than death.
c) The court likewise saw a few decisions as Rizan and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh in which it was held that the blamed need not demonstrate the presence for self-defense without question and that it would do the trick on the off chance that he could show that the greater part of preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea, just as in a civil case.