JAI DEV versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 489 · Decided: 30-07-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' . 
\ 
_,. 
3 S.C.R. 
.SUPREME COURT 'REPORTS 
JAI DEV 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
(And Connected Appeal) 
489 
(P. B, GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. c. DAS GUPTA, 
and J. R. MCJ'DHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Oriminal Law-Murder;_Self-defence-Bcope-Threat 
to 
posses'sib'I} of land-Indian Penal Gode (Act 45· of 1860), ss: 
99; JOO-Gode of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), 
:11':-342. 
-
' 
·?' The 11ppellants along with four others were charged with 
<;.-· 
~having committed offences under s. 148 and ss. 202 and 326, 
' .lead with s, 149, of the Indfan Penal Code. The incident 
''which gave rise to the present criminal proceedings ·related 
to a cultivable field in respect of which a dispute arose as to 
its pos~ssion b"tween the appellants and the faction of the 
complainant~On September 14, 1960, a rioting .took place 
in the field which resulted in the death of six persons and 
injuries to nine persons. 
The appellant's case was that they 
were.in possessions of the field and were cultivating it at the 
time of the incident whereas the prosecution contended that 
the complainant's party was in possession and that the appel-
lants virtually invaded it and caused a massacre. The High 
.Coµrt found that the crop in the field had been ploughed 
by 'the appellants and their companions and that when the 
cip~ratioris were being carried . on by' them on the day of 
rioting, the villagers, who did not tolerate the strangers, came 
,to·the field armed with weapons to' take forcible possession 
of the field, that as soon as ·fire-arms were used for the first 
time killing a person, the villae ers started running away and 
,that, after all the villagers had run away, the appellants used 
their rifles a~ainst their respective victims when the latter 
were 'standing at a COPsiderable distance from them. 'The 
High Court took the· view that as at the relevant time the 
property had been saved from 'the trespass, there was no 
'justification for using any force against the running villagers 
and so, the appellants who were proved to have caused the 
deaths of the victims could not claim protection ·of the right 
I of private defence and Were guilty of the. offence of murder 
'under's 302. ' 
. 
' 
• 
-~ 
t 
'·· ' · Hela, that the appellants were rightly convicted under 
s.302 of t,he Indian Peria! Code on the findings given by the 
:High·Court. 
...t 
19112 
190' 
! ai Deo 
v. 
Slol• oJ P•si•6 
490 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] 
In exercising the right of private defence, 
th~ force 
which a person defending himself or his property is entitled 
to use must not be unduly disproportionate to the injury 
which is to be averted or which is reawnably apprehended 
and should not exceed its legitimate purpose, The use of• the 
force must be stopped as soon as the threat has disappeared. 
The exercise of the right of private defence must never be 
vindictive or malicious~ 
In exercising its powers under s, 342 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure the Court must take care to put all the 
relevant circumstances appearing in the evidence to the accu-
sed, so that he might get an opportunity to say what he 
wanted to do so in respect of the prosecution case against 
him, but it is not vecessary that the Court should put to the 
accused detailed questions which may amount to his cross .. 
examin~tion. 
Hekl, that the failure to 'put• the specific point of the 
distance from which the appallants used their rifles, under 
i-
s. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, did not vitiate the 
trial or affect the conclusion of the High Court, 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeals Nos. 56 and 57 of 1962.-
Appeals by special leave from the judgment 
11.nd order dated October 4, 1961, of the Puujab 
High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos, 635 and 636 of 
1961 and Murder Reference No. 59 of 1961. 
Frank Anthony, Ghanshiam and P.O. Aggarwala 
for the appellants. 
N. S. Bindra, Kartar Singh, Assistant Advocate· 
General for the State of Punjab and P. D. Menon, for 
the respondents. 
1962. July 30. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by, 
Goj1nrlrogadkarJ. 
. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-The two appellants Jai 
Dev and Hari Singh along with four 'Others Yudhbir 
Singh, Dhanpat . Singh, Sajjan Singh and Parbhati 
were charged with having committed offenoes under 
~.lfS a1J,q ss.302 a?ld 326 both read wit4 s.149 of,tqe 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 
491 
Indian Penal Code. The case against them was 
that on September 14, 1960, they formed themselves 
into an unlawful ass

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