Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1039

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
A. Kalidass - Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB-CID, Madurai Range, Madurai - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD) No. 34 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 13523 of 2022
Decided On : 19-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. V. Karthi Senior Counsel for Mr. J. Lawrance.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor.

The right to self-defense under IPC can be invoked if there is reasonable apprehension of death or grievous injury; defense must be proportionate to the threat faced.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 342 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374 - Custodial death case - Accused, a Police officer, convicted for murder of a suspect during interrogation - Trial Court held the charge of murder proved beyond doubt, rejecting self-defense claim - Appeal challenged conviction and sentence, arguing failures in evidence assessment and biases in the investigation. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 36-40, 52-53)

(B) Right to Self-Defense - The right to self-defense exists in scenarios where the accused reasonably apprehends a threat to life or grievous injury - The burden of proof lies on the accused to establish a preponderance of probability regarding the threat, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. (Para 105 of Indian Evidence Act)

(C) Findings - Observations of the Judgment revealed bias and inconsistencies in the trial proceedings - Notable failure to collect and exhibit crucial evidence including weapons and the procedural lapses in investigation by the CBCID suggest serious defectiveness in the trial process - Appeals sanctioned reaffirm the rights under self-defense principle. (Para 52)

Result: Appeals allowed; conviction and sentence reversed.

Table of Content
1. overview of custodial death case. (Para 1 , 2 , 18)
2. details of the incident and initial reactions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments by defense regarding self-defense assertion. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. prosecution's evidence and counterarguments. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 24 , 25)
5. court's observations regarding prosecution's narrative. (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 21)
6. legal analysis of self-defense and culpable homicide. (Para 22 , 23 , 34 , 35)
7. arguments regarding the trial's handling of evidence. (Para 27)
8. consideration of self-defense principles and application. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
9. conclusions regarding the judgment and legal outcomes. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
10. final ruling and justification for acquittal. (Para 53 , 54)

JUDGMENT :

Dr. G. Jayachandran, C. Kumarappan, JJ.

[PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to call for the judgment dated 14.11.2019, passed in S.C.No.86 of 2015, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram, in Crime No.2 of 2014, on the file of the respondent Police, in which, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 342 of I.P.C. and also he was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and set aside the same.]

This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 14.11.2019, passed in S.C.No.86 of 2015, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.

2. This is a case of custodial death. Kalidass, the appellant/accused at the time of occurrence was the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to S.P.Pattinam Police Station, Ramanathapuram. The victim Syed Mohammed, S/o. Kattuva, was the suspect, who was brought to the Police Station in connection with the complaint given by one Aruldoss [P.W.8] a two wheeler mechanic.

3. The complaint of Aruldoss was registered by the accused in Crime No.90 of 2014 on 14.10.2014 at 03.00 p.m. At about 04.00 p.m., the accused while interrogating Syed Mohammed in his room, gun-shot sound heard from the Sub-Inspector's room following scream of the accused. Iyyappan (P.W.1), Head Constable went inside the Sub-Inspector's room and found Syed Mohammed in a pool of blood with bullet injuries and gasping. The appellant/accused came out from the room with torn shirt and bleeding injuries on his hand and abdomen.

4. The prosecution projected the incident as unprovoked attack on the victim with intention to cause the death. Also, he was charged that the appellant/accused had a motive for the murderous assault using service weapon (Revolver M.O.13). Contrarily, the appellant/accused pleaded that, the victim tried to kill him using the Knife (M.O.19) and caused injuries. To save his life, in exercise of self-defence, he fired the victim.

5. M.O.19 Knife is the weapon alleged to have been used by the victim to cause the injuries noted in Ex.P.14 Accident Register. M.O.13 the Revolver, M.O.8 and M.O.9 the bullets struck inside the body of the victim and M.O.14 the empty bullet shells are the arm and ammunitions used by the accused against the victim to cause bullet injuries found in Ex.P.9 Postmortem Report of the victim.

6. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence held that the prosecution has proved the charge beyond doubt and that the appellant/accused had intentionally caused the death of Syed Mohammed. The contradictions regarding the source of M.O.19 Knife and the opinion of the doctor regarding the injuries found on the appellant/accused were considered by the trial Court to rule out the self-defence theory propounded by