Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Ratheeshkumar @ Babu – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala & Anr. – Respondent
What is the test for determining the right of private defence (self-defence) under Indian law in this case? What is the proper consideration of evidence and burden of proof when assessing whether the right of private defence was exercised in good faith and whether there was more harm than necessary? What are the appellate court’s conclusions regarding whether Exception 2 or Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC can apply to reduce a murder conviction?
ORDER
This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 05.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No.779 of 2013 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc-III (Fast Track Court-III), Palakkad in Session Case No.490 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”).
2. The case of the prosecution may be summarised as under:-
It appears from the evidence on record that the appellant herein is an agriculturist. He owns his own agricultural farm. The agricultural farm of the deceased is adjacent to the agricultural farm of the appellant herein. On the date of the incident, the deceased was trying to put up a fence in some part of his land. The putting up of fence was objected vehemently to by the father of the appellant herein namely, Ramakrishnan. There was some altercation in words between the two. According to the case of the prosecution, the father called for his son i.e. the appellant herein for help. The appellant herein reached to the place where the q
(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 causin....
Special circumstances exist mitigating the gravity of the offence, which appeals to our judicial conscience and discretion to show clemency to the accused in the matter of sentence.
(1) Right of private defence – Instinct of self-preservation is embedded in DNA of every person – Doctrine of right to private defence is founded on very same instinct of self-preservation that has b....
The accused's actions exceeded the limits of self-defence, constituting murder rather than culpable homicide, as he pursued and stabbed the deceased after the initial threat had ceased.
The accused, as the initial aggressor, cannot claim self-defense against actions taken in response to his provocation, leading to the upheld conviction for murder.
The right of private defense is not available to an aggressor, and the evidence supported the conviction for murder and criminal trespass.
To establish a case under Section 34 of I.P.C. prosecution has to prove prior meeting of minds which may be determined from the conduct of the offenders unfolding itself during the course of action a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
