LexARUN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 289 I ARUN A v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Criminal Appeal No. 1490 of 2007 MARCH 16, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ . . , Penal Code, 1860- ss. 302, 324, 342, 454 and 96 - 106 • - Right of private defence -Availability and extent of- Plea, ..;: when can be raised and mode of proof - Stated - On facts, c deceased succumbed to injuries inflicted by accused persons - Conviction and sentence ulss. 302, 324, 342 and 454 by courts below negating the plea of exercise of private defence raised by accused - Justification of - Held: On facts and the -'( legal principles set out, order of courts below justified. D ~· The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for offence ....t punishable u/ss. 302, 324, 342 and 454 IPC, negating the plea of the appellant-accused that the deceased was the E aggressor and the appellant was exercising his right of private defence. ;, . Dismissing the appeal, the Court i HELD: 1.1 In order to find whether right of private F defence is available or not, the injuries received by the accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the injuries caused by the accused and the circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to public -~ authorities are all relevant factors to be considered. [Para G 15] [301-H; 302-A] Biran Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1975 SC 87; Wassan Singh v. State of Punjab (1996) 1 SCC 458, Sekar alias Raja 289 H 290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R. A Sekharan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, TN. 2002 (8) sec 354 - referred to. 1.2 A person who is apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales in the spur of moment B and in the heat of circumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm the assailants who were armed with weap'?ns. In moments of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium it is often difficult to expect the parties to preserve composure and use exactly only so much force in retaliation commensurate with the danger apprehended 4 c to him where assault is imminent by use of force, it would be lawful to repel the force in self-defence and the right of private-defence commences, as soon as the threat becomes so imminent. Such situations have to be pragmatically viewed and not with high-powered D spectacles or microscopes to detect slight or even marginal overstepping. Due weightage has to be given ~ • to, and hyper technical approach has to be avoided in considering what happens on the spur of the moment on the spot and keeping in view normal human reaction and E conduct, where self-preservation is the paramount consideration. But, if the fact situation shows that in the guise of self-preservation, what really has been done is to assault the original aggressor, even after the cause of ~ reasonable apprehension has disappeared, the plea of • F right of private-defence can legitimately be negatived. The Court dealing with the plea has to weigh the material to conclude whether the plea is acceptable. It is essentially, a finding of fact. [Para 16] [302-C-G] Butta Singh v. The State of Punjab AIR 1991 SC 1316 - G referred to. 1.3 The right of self-defence is a very valuable rig ht, serving a social purpose and should not be construed narrowly. Situations have to be judged from the subjective H point of view of the accused concerned in the surrounding ARUN V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 291 J excitement and confusion of the moment, confronted with A a situation of peril and not by any microscopic and pedantic scrutiny. In adjudging the question as to whether more force than was necessary was used in the prevailing circumstances on the spot it would be inappropriate, to adopt tests by detached objectivity which would be so B natural in a Court room, or that which would seem absolutely necessary to a perfectly cool bystander. The _, person facing a reasonable apprehension of threat to • himself cannot be expected to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude of only that much c which is required in the thinking of a man in ordinary times or under normal circumstances. [Para 17] [303-A-D] Vidhya Singh v. State of MP AIR 1971 SC 1857 - referred to. ,~ Russel on Crime 11th Edition Volume I p 49 - referred D to. 1.4 The right of private defence is essentially a defens
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.