If a person acting in exercise of the right of private defense exceeds the limits of that right, the person may be guilty of an offense under Section 304-II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) or Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 304-II, 307, 308 I.P.C. - RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE - EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 300 EXCEPTION 2, SECTION 304-II, SECTION 307, SECTION 308 I.P.C. - OFFENCE COMMITTED BY ACCUSED IN EXCESS OF RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE - CONVICTION UNDER APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved two appeals filed by two accused convicted of murder and attempt to commit murder. The incident occurred due to a dispute between the accused and the deceased's family over a land measurement issue. The accused claimed they acted in self-defense after being assaulted by the deceased and his brother. The prosecution presented evidence from eyewitnesses, the dying declaration of the deceased, and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused had acted in excess of their right of private defense. The accused had used knives to inflict fatal injuries on the deceased and grievous injuries on the injured witness. The court held that the accused were entitled to exercise their right of private defense, but they had exceeded the limits of that right.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused acted in exercise of their right of private defense? 2. If so, whether the accused exceeded the limits of that right? 3. What is the nature of the offence committed by each of the accused?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the accused had a right of private defense as they were attacked with sticks by the deceased and his brother. 2. However, the court found that the accused had exceeded the limits of their right of defense by using knives to inflict fatal and grievous injuries on the deceased and the injured witness. 3. The court held that the accused were guilty of offenses under Section 304-II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals in part. The convictions of the accused for murder and attempt to commit murder were set aside. The accused were convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, respectively. The accused were sentenced to imprisonment for the period they had already undergone and were released forthwith.

JUDGMENT - A.B. PALKAR, J.:---These two appeals are filed by two different accused in Sessions Case No. 168/92 decided by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on 27-08-1993. By the impugned order, the appellant-accused No. 1 (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 337/93 has been convicted of the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C for committing murder of Vasant Nanaji Rangale and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and the appellant - original accused No. 2 has been convicted of offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. for attempting to commit murder of Manohar P.W. 1 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The original accused Nos. 3 4, who were convicted of the offence punishable under section 323 of I.P.C. were already in jail for more than 14 months during the trial, they have not appealed for the obvious reason that after the judgment of the Sessions Court, they were released as they were not required in any other case.

2. Both the appellants were charged for committing the aforesaid offences in furtherance of common intention of committing murder of Vasant Nanaji Rangale (deceased). However, the conviction is for aforesaid offences of committing murder and attempting to commit murder simpliciter and not for acting in furtherance of common intention with the other accused.

3. In this Court, the original accused No. 1-Gajanan (appellant in Appeal No. 337/93) was represented by learned Counsel Shri M.R. Daga, whereas the accused No. 2-Raju (appellant in Appeal No. 366/93) was represented by the learned Counsel Shri K.R. Lambat and State was represented by the learned A.P.P. Smt. A.A. Joshi.

4. The following statement of facts will reveal the controversy.

The incident in question took place on 25-05-1992 at 11.00 a.m. on public road near the house of accused as well as house of the deceased. After the aforesaid incident Vasanta died on 29-05-1992 and the report of the incident was lodged by P.W. 1 Manohar who is real brother of deceased Vasanta and one Ramesh. The Original Accused Nos. 1-Gajanan 2- Raju are real brothers, accused No. 3- Shankar is their uncle and accused No. 4- Madhu is son of accused No. 3. Thus, the house of the accused and house of the deceased are in the same locality and adjoining each other. There was partition between Manohar, Vasant and Ramesh sometimes in the year 1982 and since partition Ramesh was living separate and it is not disputed that he was living with accused No. 3 - Shankar. On the day of this incident, some times between 10 to 10.30 a.m., Bhaiyya @ Balu S/o Bapurao - brother of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had beaten Dnyaneshwar S/o Manohar. Therefore, P.W. 1 Manohar asked Raju - accused No. 2 as to why Bhaiyya had assaulted his son. There was a quarrel in which accused No. 2 -Raju physically lifted Manohar and had thrown him on the ground giving a threat of consequence. Deceased Vasanta intervened in the quarrel and separated them. After sometime, deceased and Manohar finished their meals and in view of the threat given by Raju, they decided to approach the police and lodge a report. For the aforesaid purpose, they were to proceed to Police Station. Deceased Vasantrao was inside the house, whereas Manohar was near the bullock-cart as they had decided to go by Cart. Probably sensing their mood, accused No. 1 - Gajanan and Accused No. 2 Raju came there armed with knives. They called the deceased out of the house and told that they will settle the matter on the spot. When the deceased came out of the house, accused No. 1 Gajanan dealt him 2/3 blows with knife on abdomen. P.W. 1 Manohar intervened in order to rescue his brother. However, accused No. 2 Raju dealt him knife blow on abdomen and one blow on the left side eye. In the meantime, Accused No. 3 Shankar and his son Madhukar accused No. 4 came on the spot armed with sticks and Shankar d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document