2025 Supreme(SC) 116

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Ratheeshkumar @ Babu – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Kerala & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1049 of 2018
Decided On : 09-01-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Right of private defence (Self-defence) – Self-preservation is basic human instinct and is duly recognised by criminal jurisprudence of all civilized countries – In order to justify act of causing death of assailant, accused has simply to satisfy court that he was faced with an assault which caused reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt – Impending danger must be present, real or apparent.
(2) Right of private defence (Self-defence) – Court presumes absence of circumstances that would justify a defence claim, but this presumption can be rebutted by accused – Even if private-defence is not formally pleaded, it may still be considered based on material available on record, with accused bearing responsibility to substantiate it.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 100 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 38] – Right of private defence (Self-defence) – Self-preservation is basic human instinct and is duly recognised by criminal jurisprudence of all civilized countries – In order to justify act of causing death of assailant, accused has simply to satisfy court that he was faced with an assault which caused reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt – Question whether apprehension was reasonable or not is a question of fact depending upon facts and circumstances of each case – Court, while deciding this question of fact, is to take into consideration various facts, like weapon used, manner and nature of assault, motive and other circumstances – Court should take overall view of the case and if a right of self-defence is made out from evidence on record, that right should not be construed narrowly because right of self- defence is a very valuable right and it has a social purpose – Impending danger must be present, real or apparent – Burden of proving self-defence is always on accused but it is not as onerous as one which lies with prosecution – Such burden can be discharged by probabilising defence. (Paras 17, 18, 20 and 21)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 100 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 38] – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 105 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 108] – Right of private defence (Self-defence) – Burden of proving self-defence is always on accused but it is not as onerous as one which lies with prosecution – Such burden can be discharged by probabilising defence – Court presumes absence of circumstances that would justify a defense claim, but this presumption can be rebutted by accused – Even if private-defense is not formally pleaded, it may still be considered based on material available on record, with accused bearing responsibility to substantiate it. (Paras 29 and 32)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1)] – Murder – Life sentence – All eye-witnesses are consistent in their version – Compound of deceased and that of accused convict are adjacent to each other – It is not the case of appellant-convict that deceased trespassed into his own land and tried to put up a fence – Facts do not provide any basis to suggest that appellant had a reasonable apprehension of imminent danger to justify causing death of deceased – Defence argument claiming protection of property appears unfounded in this context, as facts do not support any imminent threat to appellant’s property – Accused even after inflicting two stab wounds continued with assault – This indicates that level of force used by accused exceeded what was necessary for self-defense – In case of private defense, actions taken must be strictly preventive, aimed at averting danger, rather than punitive or retributive – Continued assault after initial injury demonstrates a disproportionate use of force, which is inconsistent with principle of self-defence – Inflicting a murderous assault with a deadly weapon upon unarmed deceased and subsequently continuing to beat him, even when deceased fell to the ground, provides a clear indication that accused had not acted in good faith and had intention of causing more harm than was necessary – Circumstances do not support reasonable apprehension of imminent danger that would justify actions of accused, making it challenging to sustain claim of self- defense – No case is made out to interfere – Appellant given liberty to prefer appropriate representation to State Government for remission of sentence in accordance with its policy. (Paras 13, 21, 22, 24, 27, 32, 34 and 35)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal arises from judgment and order dated 05.01.2018 passed by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal by which High Court dismissed appeal filed by appellant herein and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by Trial Court for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Findings of Court:

If case of appellant is falling within remission policy of State of Kerala then authority concerned shall look into same. Appellant is on bail. He shall now surrender before jail authorities to serve his remaining sentence within a period of four weeks from today. Bail bond stands cancelled.

Result : Appeal dismissed.