Can You Hurt Someone in Self-Defence and Still Avoid Paying Damages?

The Supreme Court recently held that a person who harms another while defending themselves can, in some situations, avoid having to pay damages, but only if the act was truly necessary and not excessive. Justice Janak De Silva explained that self-defence (the right of private defence) is recognised not only in criminal law but also in civil law, Lex Aquilia, which deals with wrongful acts or “delicts.”

The Court explained that if you are attacked and you fight back just enough to protect yourself or someone else, you cannot later be forced to pay for the injuries caused, because your act was lawful, not wrongful.

A Village Dispute Turns Tragic

The case arose from a violent confrontation between two neighbouring families on a rural plantation. After years of animosity, an afternoon quarrel turned fatal when one man stormed into the other’s home carrying a knife. During the struggle that followed, acid was thrown, leaving one man permanently blind.

The injured man sued the other family in civil court, demanding compensation for what he called a premeditated acid attack. The defendants admitted they had thrown the acid, but insisted it was done in self-defence, fearing for their own lives and those of their children.

Two Courts, Two Opposite Views

The District Court ruled in favour of the injured man, holding that the defendants had gone too far. Relying on the Penal Code, the judge said “the right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.” Blinding a man permanently, he reasoned, exceeded that limit.

The High Court, however, disagreed. It held that the family’s actions were consistent with the right of private defence and set aside the damages award.

The Supreme Court’s Correction: Two Kinds of Wrong

The Supreme Court clarified that the lower court had confused criminal and civil law. Justice De Silva explained that the Penal Code defines criminal offences, whereas the Lex Aquilia addresses civil wrongs or delicts. While both involve harm, their principles differ.

He observed that the “right of private defence available as a defence to an Aquilian action must not be equated with that in the Penal Code,” because “they have different contours.” In civil law, a person’s conduct is judged by the legal convictions of the community.

What Counts as Lawful Defence

To decide what makes an act of self-defence lawful, the Court turned to Roman-Dutch and South African precedents often cited in Sri Lankan civil law. It explained that self-defence is available only when:

• There is an actual or imminent attack by another person;
• The attack is wrongful, meaning not legally justified;
• The defensive act is directed at the aggressor;
• The defence is necessary to protect life, limb, or property; and
• The defensive act is not more harmful than necessary.

If all these elements are proven, then the law treats the act as lawful, not wrongful, and the person cannot be held liable for damages. As the Court quoted from a South African legal text: “Every person is entitled to defend himself against unlawful attack, provided the force he employs is not out of proportion to the apparent urgency of the occasion.”

Judging Fear: The Objective Test

The Court cautioned that courts must avoid hindsight bias when judging acts of self-defence. Quoting a 1950 South African case, Justice Janak De Silva said: “The Court must place itself in the position of the person claiming to have acted in self-defence and consider all the surrounding factors operating on his mind at the time… The Court must be careful to avoid the role of the armchair critic, wise after the event, weighing the matter in the secluded security of the courtroom.”

How the Evidence Played Out

The injured man claimed he was attacked without warning, hit on the head, dragged into the house, and then doused with acid. But medical reports showed no head injury, and the terrain made such dragging unlikely. The police also found a knife belonging to the injured man, supporting the family’s claim that he had been the aggressor.

The Court noted that the acid used was readily available in the household because the family had previously worked on a rubber estate, where acid is used to solidify latex. Keeping it at home, the Court said, was “reasonable and common,” not proof of a planned assault.

Although the injuries were tragic and severe, the Court found that the amount of acid used and the direction of the burns did not conclusively prove a deliberate or excessive act. Justice De Silva observed: “It is not unreasonable to suggest that such a quantity of acid could have been employed on that scale in the heat of exercising their right of private defence.”

The Missing Evidence and Section 114(f)

The Court also discussed the absence of certain evidence, such as medical reports about the defendants’ own injuries and witnesses who were not called. Under Section 114(f) of the Evidence Ordinance, a court may presume that evidence not produced would have been unfavourable to the party withholding it.

However, Justice De Silva noted that this presumption is not automatic. It applies only where the party had the power and opportunity to call the witness or produce the evidence but deliberately chose not to. In this case, the missing medical records were unavailable due to circumstances beyond the defendants’ control, and therefore the presumption under Section 114(f) did not apply. 

When Self-Defence Fails

The Supreme Court also explained when this powerful defence cannot be used. Referring to earlier cases, the court said: “Where the threatened harm can be avoided without the use of force, private defence cannot succeed.” This means that once the danger has passed, or if the defender uses force far beyond what’s necessary, they lose the shield of self-defence. But in this case, the Court found no such excess. The act, though brutal in outcome, was deemed proportionate to the danger faced.

The Final Verdict

After reviewing all the facts, evidence, and law, the Supreme Court concluded that the acid-throwing, though tragic, occurred during a genuine attempt to save lives. The injured man was the aggressor, and the family’s actions were “necessary to protect their lives and those of their children.”The appeal was dismissed.

Justice De Silva said with a principle that will echo through future cases: “Once the requirements of private defence are satisfied, the liability under the Aquilian action is excluded, as the impugned act is rendered lawful by virtue of its justification.”

“In a Lex Aquilian action, the respondent is not liable to pay damages if the respondent can justify his actions as being lawful. Where the act… is made in the exercise of his right of private defence, it must be established that the defence was directed against the aggressor, that the defence was necessary to protect the threatened right, and that the act of defence was not more harmful than is necessary to ward off the attack.” – Justice Janak De Silva

Case No: SC Appeal No. 62/2014 [Decided on 30.10.2025]
Before: S. Thurairaja, PC,J,. ,Janak De Silva,J., Mahinda Samayawardhena,J.