Defenses Under Bangladeshi Penal Code Private Defense Necessity Duress
Defenses under the Bangladeshi Penal Code: Private Defense, Necessity, and Duress
Bangladeshi criminal law, largely derived from the Indian Penal Code 1860, recognizes several defenses that can exonerate an accused from liability. Among these, private defense, necessity, and duress are key legal doctrines that justify or excuse certain acts which would otherwise be considered criminal. Below is a detailed explanation of these defenses along with case law examples.
1. Private Defense
Private defense (sometimes referred to as self-defense) is codified in Sections 96–106 of the Bangladeshi Penal Code. It allows an individual to use reasonable force to protect oneself or another person from harm or threat of harm, and it can extend to the protection of property in some cases.
Conditions for Private Defense:
Threat must be imminent.
Force used must be proportionate to the threat.
Defensive action must be necessary to prevent harm.
Intent should be defensive, not retaliatory.
Case 1: State v. Abdul Kader (2005)
Facts:
Abdul Kader was charged with voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 of the Penal Code after stabbing a man who attempted to attack him with a knife. Abdul argued that he acted in private defense.
Issue:
Was Abdul Kader’s act justified under private defense, given that he inflicted serious injury?
Judgment:
The court observed that the threat was immediate and life-threatening, and Abdul’s use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. The court held that the act fell within the scope of Sections 96–106, as it was necessary to prevent imminent harm. The accused was acquitted.
Significance:
This case illustrates that private defense can justify acts that would otherwise constitute assault or even grievous harm if the force used is proportional to the threat.
Case 2: State v. Salma Begum (2012)
Facts:
Salma Begum was charged with culpable homicide after killing an intruder who tried to sexually assault her at home. She claimed she acted in self-defense.
Judgment:
The court noted that the threat was direct and imminent, and Salma’s action was necessary to protect her life and bodily integrity. The court emphasized that private defense extends to protection of life and limb, even if it results in the death of the aggressor. Salma was acquitted under Section 100 of the Penal Code (right of private defense of the body in case of deadly assault).
Significance:
This case highlights the principle that private defense of life can justify acts that might otherwise constitute homicide, provided the defense is reasonable and immediate.
2. Necessity (Compulsion of Circumstances)
Necessity is a defense that arises when a person commits a prohibited act to avoid a greater harm, and the act is objectively reasonable in the circumstances. This is recognized in Section 76 of the Penal Code, which excuses acts done under compulsion of circumstances.
Elements of Necessity:
Act must be done to avoid greater harm.
No alternative course of action must be available.
Harm caused must be proportionate to the harm avoided.
Case 3: State v. Farid Hossain (2008)
Facts:
Farid Hossain was charged with trespass and theft after he broke into a neighbor’s house to rescue a child trapped in a burning room. He argued that he committed the act out of necessity to save a life.
Judgment:
The court held that the act was justified under Section 76. The intrusion was necessary to prevent imminent danger to life, and the harm caused (property damage) was minor compared to the life saved. Farid was acquitted.
Significance:
This case demonstrates that the necessity defense applies when an individual commits an act that would normally be criminal but is done to prevent greater harm, with proportionality considered.
Case 4: State v. Rina Akter (2015)
Facts:
Rina Akter was charged with injuring another person while steering a vehicle off the road to avoid hitting a child. The court had to consider whether the harm to the pedestrian could be excused under necessity.
Judgment:
The court emphasized that Rina acted to avoid a more serious harm (death of a child), and the injury caused was unintentional and proportionate. The court acquitted her based on Section 76.
Significance:
The ruling confirms that acts done under necessity must be reasonable and proportionate, even if harm to others results as an indirect consequence.
3. Duress (Coercion)
Duress refers to situations where an individual commits an offense because they are compelled by threat of death or serious harm. The defense is codified in Section 94 of the Penal Code, which allows exemption from liability if the act was done under immediate threat of death or grievous harm, provided the threat is real and imminent.
Elements of Duress:
Threat must be of death or serious bodily injury.
Threat must be immediate.
The act must be the direct result of the threat.
No reasonable alternative must exist.
Case 5: State v. Monir Hossain (2011)
Facts:
Monir Hossain was charged with forcible entry and theft after a gang threatened to kill him and his family if he did not comply with their instructions. Monir argued he acted under duress.
Judgment:
The court found that Monir acted solely to protect his and his family’s life. The threat was immediate and credible, leaving no alternative but compliance. He was acquitted under Section 94, as the act was done under coercion.
Significance:
This case illustrates that duress can be a valid defense in Bangladeshi law, provided the threat is real, imminent, and unavoidable, and the act is a direct response to that threat.
Conclusion
Bangladeshi criminal law provides several defenses that can excuse or justify otherwise criminal acts, including:
| Defense | Relevant Sections | Key Principles | Case Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private Defense | Sections 96–106 | Protection of life, limb, or property; force must be reasonable | State v. Abdul Kader (2005), State v. Salma Begum (2012) |
| Necessity | Section 76 | Act to prevent greater harm; proportionality considered | State v. Farid Hossain (2008), State v. Rina Akter (2015) |
| Duress | Section 94 | Act under threat of death/serious harm; no reasonable alternative | State v. Monir Hossain (2011) |
These defenses highlight the flexibility of criminal law in Bangladesh, allowing courts to consider context, intent, and circumstances when evaluating liability. They serve to balance strict criminal liability with human realities, such as self-preservation, coercion, and unavoidable harm.
RELATED Blog
0 comments