Legal Principle: It is an offense to obstruct a public servant in the due discharge of his duty. The right of private defense is available to protect one’s person and property.
Fact Situation: Sidhu comes to the rescue of his uncle who is sought to be taken into a car by some men. In the process, he causes injury to some of them. Later, it turns out that the men were police persons in plain clothes trying to enforce a warrant against his uncle.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Sidhu has committed the offence of obstructing a public servant in due discharge of his duty.
Sidhu has not committed an offence since he did not know that the men were from the police.
Sidhu’s uncle has resisted arrest and should be proceeded against.
Sidhu should not have tried to help his uncle without ascertaining the fact
Sidhu has not committed an offense since he did not know that the men were from the police.
Right of private defense of body, this right has been given by the state to every citizen of the country to take law into his own hand for their safety of themselves or anybody else. The right is not dependent on the actual criminality of the person resisted. It depends solely on the wrongful or apparently wrongful character of the act attempted, if the apprehension is real and reasonable, it makes no difference that it is mistaken. IPC Section 96
Nothing is an offense, which is done in the exercise of the right of private defense.
In the light of above arguments, "Sidhu has not committed an offense since he did not know that the men were from the police" is the most appropriate and it can be clearly said that Sidhu has not committed an offense since he did not know that the men were from the police and he was only trying to save his uncle in good faith.