ARJUN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2012] 5 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 03-05-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 5 S.C.R. 661 
ARJUN 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 2007) 
MAY 03, 2012 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 96 to 106, 302, 300 Exception 4 
and 304 (Part I) - Right of private defence - General principles 
A 
B 
- Explained - On facts, conviction of appellant u/s. 302 for C 
causing murder of a person and u/s. 326 for causing grievous 
hurt to the wife of the deceased - Case of the defence that 
there was a property dispute between the parties; that the 
appellant as well as another accused sustained injuries; and 
that the deceased sustained fatal injuries due to sudden fight 
D 
between the parties and the accused had to ward off the attack 
in his self defence - On appeal, held: Evidence clearly 
indicate that the appellant was armed with a knife with which 
he inflicted serious injuries on the head of the deceased, 
resulting in his death and also that the appellant inflicted 
E 
injuries on the wife of the deceased as well when she tried to 
save her husband - Further, there is nothing to show that the 
deceased, his wife and his son or others had attacked the 
appellant, nor the surrounding circumstances indicate that 
there was a reasonable apprehension that the death or F 
grievous hurt was likely to be caused to the appellant by them 
or others - Mere fact that the other seven accused were 
acquitted or that some of the prosecution witnesses were also 
convicted not sufficient to hold that the appellant was not the 
aggressor - Plea of private defence not sustainable -
Considering the background facts as well as the fact that there 
G 
was no pre-meditation and the act was committed in a heat 
of passion and that the appellant did not take any undue 
advantage or acted in a cruel manner and that there was a 
fight between the parties, case falls under the fourth exception 
661 
H 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
to s. 300 - Thus, conviction altered from s. 302 to s. 304 Part 
1 with custodial sentence of 10 years. 
There were some property disputes between the 
appellant and 'J'. On the fateful day, when 'J' came in front 
8 
of the appellant's shop, the appellant abused 'J' and later 
on the appellant and his brothers (accused no. 2 to 8) 
armed with weapons attacked 'J' and his wife-(PW 8) and 
his son-(PW 1 ). The appe1llant inflicted three blows on the 
head of 'J' with a large knife and deceased fell down. 
When (PW 8) intervene~d to rescue her husband, the 
C appellant inflicted blows on her head, back and shoulder 
and when PW 10 (brothe1r-in-law of PW 8) and his son (PW 
11) came to their rescue; the appellant assaulted both of 
them. 'J' succumbed to his injuries. PW 1 lodged FIR. The 
appellant also lodged an FIR against PW 1, PW 10 and 
D PW 11 and other persons. Thereafter, the Sessions court 
tried the case. The appellants contended that the parties 
were on inimical terms; that the appellant as well as 
accused no. 8 sustaine1d injuries; that the deceased J 
sustained fatal injuries due to sudden fight between the 
E 
parties and the accused had to ward off the attack in his 
self defence. The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted 
accused no. 8, however, convicted the appellant for the 
offence punishable und1er Section 302 IPC for murder of 
'J' and for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC 
F for causing grievous hurt to PW 8. Aggrieved, the 
appellant filed an appeal and the High Court upheld the 
order of the conviction and sentence passed by the trial 
court against the appe!llant. The State filed an appeal 
against acquittal and th•~ High Court dismissed the same. 
G Thus, the appellant filed the instant appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Law cle!arly spells out that the right of 
private defence is available only when there is a 
H reasonable apprehension of receiving injury. ?ection 99 
ARJUN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
663 
IPC explains that the injury which is inflicted by a person 
A 
exercising the right should commensurate with the injury 
with which he is threatened. True, that the accused need 
not prove the existence of the right of private defence 
beyond reasonable doubt and it is enough for him to 
show as in a civil case that preponderance of 8 
probabilities is in favour of his plea. Right of private 
defence cannot be used to do away with a wrong doer 
unless the person concerned has a reasonable cause to 
fear that otherwise death or grievous hurt might ensue 
in which cas

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.