Additional Sessions Judge Sudesh Kumar said that the circumstances in which the accused (woman) was, were amply sufficient to give her the "right of private defence" of the body even to the extent of causing death.
"The prevailing circumstances gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that either the victim would be ravished or grievous hurt would be caused if the right is not exercised.
The court said whether the man was ravishing his minor daughter at the time her mother intervened or whether he "belligerently" attacked them on being confronted, was immaterial as in both the circumstances a reasonable apprehension of imminent danger to their body has arisen.
"I have no hesitation in holding that act of the accused was in the nature of exercise of private defence and had the accused not stopped the deceased(husband), either he would have raped her daughter or would have caused physical harm to her and also the victim who was resisting his advances to defeat his evil acts as he has previously done when he raped his daughter and fractured the leg of the accused when she objected," the judge said.