IMPORTANT POINT
The law does not confer a right of self defence on a person who invites an attack on himself by his own attack on another as the principle of right of self defence cannot legitimately be utilised as a shield to justify an act of aggression.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860--Sections 302, 307, 326, 326/34, 324, 323 and 452-Conviction under Appeal against-Appellant had tenanted first floor of premises to deceased-Appellant and his wife occupied ground floor-Eviction proceedings pending-Positive evidence that incident had occurred in first floor occupied by complainant party- Appellants were aggressors having attacked complainant party and deceased in their dwelling apartment-No right of private defence available to them-Serious injuries inflicted to several persons of complainant party-Fatal injuries caused to deceased when he had fallen down with face downward-Repeated assaults made on back of deceased causing massive damage to vital organs-There being intention to inflict those particular bodily injuries which were neither accidental nor unintentional-Acts of appellants fall within purview of Section 300 thirdly punishable u/s 302-Conviction recorded is legally sustainable.
       Held : Strictly speaking the right of private defence under the Penal Code is entirely a preventive measure provided to a person or party who is unlawfully attacked by another person or party, to dispel such attack. But there is no such right of private defence available under the Code against an act which is in itself an offence. The Law does not confer a right of self defence on a person who invites an attack on himself by his own attack on another. The principle of right of self defence cannot legitimately be utilised as a shield to justify an act of aggression. A person who is unlawfully attacked has every right to counteract and attack upon his assailant and cause such injury as may be necessary to ward of the apprehended danger or threat. (Para 17)
       In the instant case before us, as discussed above, we have conclusively found, on the basis of positive evidence, that the incident had occurred in the first floor occupied by the complainant party and the appellants themselves were the troubleshooters and aggressors having attacked the complainant party and the deceased in their dwelling apartment and, therefore, no right of private defence was available to them because the Law does not confer a right of self-defence on such persons who invite an attack on themselves by their own high-handedness, threat or attack on another. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT

Faizan Uddin, J.-The four appellants, namely, Kashmiri Lal, Ravinder Kumar,

Manimohan Rai and Mool Chand were changed and tried alongwith the co-accused Chander Prakash for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 452 read with Section 149 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1978 (Trial No. 8 of 1978), who by his judgment dated 11th May, 1978 acquitted the co-accused Chander Prakash, but convicted and sentenced the four appellants herein as under:

Name of the accused Section (a) Sentence

Kashmiri Lal 326/34 IPC R.I. for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months.

323 IPC R.I. for three months.

452 IPC R.I. for two years.

All the sentences to run concurrently.

Ravinder Kumar 326/34 IPC R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 200, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months.

452 IPC R.I. for two years.

Both the sentences to run concurrently.

Manmohan Rai 326/34 IPC R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 200, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months.

324 IPC R.I. for one year.

452 IPC R.I. for two years.

All the sentences to run concurrently.

Mool Chand 302 IPC Imprisonment for life.

307 IPC R.I. for seven years and a fine of Rs. 300, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months.

326 IPC R.I. for six years.

452 IPC R.I. for two years.

All the sentences to run concurrently.

(2) The High Court in Criminal Appeal No.593 of 1978, decided on 18th December, 1979, upheld the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant No. 4, Mool Chand. The High Court also upheld the convictions of the remaining appellant Nos. 1 to 3 under various counts, as indicated above, but reduced the period of their sentences to that already undergone by each of them. In addition, the High Court imposed payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- on appellant No. 1, Kashmiri Lal, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months.

(3) Admittedly, the incident has occurred on January 6, 1978 at about 11 P.M. in the house belonging to the appellant Kashmiri Lal, the first floor of which was tenanted by him to the deceased Gurbachan Singh. The appellant Kashmiri Lal and his family occupied the ground floor of the said house and a room in the ground floor is said to be in possession of one Krishan Lal, P.W. 14. The appellant Kashmiri Lal had initiated eviction proceedings against the deceased Gurbachan Singh, who had also filed a suit for injunction against the appellant Kashmiri Lal.

(4) The prosecution case was that on the aforesaid date and time, the four appellants alongwith the acquitted accused Chander Prakash were attempting to break open the lock of the room in ground floor which was in possession of Krishan Lal, P.W. 14 and, therefore, the deceased Gurbachan Singh directed his son Manmohan Singh, PW 12, to go and inform Krishan Lal about the same. It was alleged that when Manmohan Lal, P.W. 12, came down and was in the court-yard of the ground floor, the appellant No. 1 Kashmiri Lal armed with an axe, appellant No. 4, Mool Chand armed with a Sua, appellant No. 2, Ravinder Kumar armed with a Sota and appellant No. 3, Manmohan Rai armed with a knife and the acquitted accused Chander Prakash armed with a hammer were seen there, when the appellant Kashmiri Lal is said to have raised a Lalkara that Manmohan Singh should not be allowed to escape. Thereupon, Manmohan Singh, P.W. 12, was assaulted by the appellants. On

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1354

1996(6) Supreme 424SUPREME COURT OF INDIAFaizan Uddin & Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.Kashmiri Lal & Ors. -AppellantsversusState of Punjab -RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 184 of 1980Decided on 29-8-1996

IMPORTANT POINTThe law does not confer a right of self defence on a person who invites an attack on himself by his own attack on another as the principle of right of self defence cannot legitimately be utilised as a shield to justify an act of aggression.

1996(6) Supreme 424
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Faizan Uddin & Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.
Kashmiri Lal & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 1980
Decided on 29-8-1996

IMPORTANT POINT
The law does not confer a right of self defence on a person who invites an attack on himself by his own attack on another as the principle of right of self defence cannot legitimately be utilised as a shield to justify an act of aggression.