Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 87

2009(1) Supreme 395
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Ranveer Singh — Appellant
versus
State of M.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2009
Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3905 of 2008
Decided on : 21-01-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Rajesh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:C.D. Singh, Sunny Chowdhary, Aditya Singh and Ms. Upasana Nath, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT - Right of private defence lasts so long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body continues.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 96 – Conviction of appellant u/s 302 r/w 109 for causing death of deceased – Prosecution case that appellant had exhorted his minor son to commit murder of deceased by firing a shot from his gun – Appellants’ son being a minor was referred to Juvenile Court – Appeal – Plea that accused had exercised right of private defence – High Court held that even if right of private defence was accepted to be available at some point of time, it was exceeded and hence appropriate conviction would be under section 304 Part II IPC – Appeal thereagainst – Held right of private defence is essentially a defensive right circumscribed by the governing statute i.e. the IPC, available only when the circumstances clearly justify it – It should not be allowed to be pleaded or availed as a pretext for a vindictive, aggressive or retributive purpose of offence – It is a right of defence, not of retribution, expected to repel unlawful aggression and not as relaliatory measure – While providing for exercise of the right, care has been taken in IPC not to provide a mechanism whereby an attack may be a pretence for killing – A right to defend does not include a right to launch an offensive, particularly when the need to defend no longer survived – Instantly High court rightly held that even if it was accepted that at some point of time, appellant was exercising right of private defence, same was exceeded and had rightly found him guilty under Section 304 Part I, IPC – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 15 to 18)
        2005(10) SCC 358 – Relied upon.
        Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 96 – Right to private defence – In order to find whether right of private defence is available or not, the injuries received by the accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the injuries caused by the accused and whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are all relevant factors to be considered. (Para 11)
        AIR 1975 SC 87, 1996(1) SCC 458, 2002(8) SCC 354 – Relied upon.
       Facts of the case:
        Appellant herein in the instant case was convicted u/s 302 r/w 109 of IPC. On appeal High Court held that even if appellant exercised right to private defence, same was exceeded and had rightly found him guilty under section 304 Part I, IPC.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior Bench. The appellant was convicted by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 or in the alternative under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

3. The High Court by the impugned judgment altered the conviction to section 304 Part I IPC read with Sections 109 and 34 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- with default stipulation.

4. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

Report Ex.P/1 was lodged by complainant Lakhansingh (PW1) according to which on 31.5.1990 his cousin Pappu had some altercation with Kanthshree (DW1), sister-in-law of appellant. Due to that incident when on 1.6.1990 at 6.00 a.m. Pappu was going to answer call of nature, he was surrounded by appellant Ranveer Singh and his son Munnu alias Prithviraj and was thrashed to ground. When he shouted, complainant Lakhansingh (PW 1), Vasudev (P.W.3) and Vrindawan (PW 3) reached the spot alongwith Lalita alias Firki (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), sister of the complainant Lakhansingh and his cousin Sunil (PW8). Seeing them, appellant asked his son Prithviraj alias Munnu to bring his licensed rifle from the home. Prithviraj alias Munnu brought the gun from the house. On exhortation of the present appellant, Munnu fired a gun shot which caused injury to Lalita on the left thigh. Lalita was taken to the hospital in a bullock cart but on the way she succumbed to the injury sustained by her.

Report of the incident was lodged on 1.6.1990 at about 7 A.M. at police station Dehat, Bhind. On the basis of the report lodged by Lakhansingh (PW 1), police registered a criminal case against the present appellant and his son Prithviraj alias Munnu. Said Prithviraj alias Munnu being a minor, his case was referred to the Juvenile Court. So far as the present appellant is concerned, the matter was investigated by the police and challan was filed against him. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The Sessions Court recorded the evidence and after appreciating the evidence convicted and sentenced the present appellant as indicated hereinabove. An appeal was preferred before the High Court.

Before the High Court the basic stand was that the accused had exercised the right of private defence and, therefore, no offence was made out. The High Court held that even if the right of private defence is accepted to be available at some point of time, it was exceeded and, therefore, the appropriate conviction was under Section 304 Part II IPC.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is clearly protected because he was exercising the right of private defence.

6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the judgment.

7. Only question which needs to be considered is the alleged exercise of right of private defence. Section 96, IPC provides that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. The Section does not define the expression ‘right of private defence’. It merely indicates that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of such right. Whether in a particular set of circumstances, a person legitimately acted in the exercise of the right of private defence is a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. No test in the abstract for determining such a question can be laid down. In determining this question of fact, the Court must consider all the surrounding circumstances. It is not necessary for the accused to plead in so many words that he acted in self-defence. If the circumstances show that the right of private defence was legitimately exercised, it i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 87

2009(1) Supreme 395SUPREME COURT OF INDIADr. Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.Ranveer Singh — AppellantversusState of M.P. — RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 115 of 2009Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3905 of 2008Decided on : 21-01-2009

IMPORTANT POINT - Right of private defence lasts so long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body continues.

Cases Referred (12)

2009(1) Supreme 395
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Ranveer Singh — Appellant
versus
State of M.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2009
Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3905 of 2008
Decided on : 21-01-2009