LexJANGIR SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
731
JANGIR SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 2499 of 2009)
OCTOBER 31, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,
JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304 Part I and 300 Exception II - Right
to private defence – Benefit of – On facts, altercation between the
appellant and the victim, in presence of other colleagues – Victim
aimed rifle at the appellant and the appellant fired gunshot at the
victim in exercise of his right of private defence of his body and
killed the victim – Acquittal by the trial court, however, the High
Court convicted the appellant u/s. 302 holding that the right to
private defence on the part of the appellant was not made out – On
appeal, held: Owing to the imminent danger perceived by the
appellant from the aiming of rifle at him by the deceased, he fired at
the deceased and killed him – Having regard to the situs of the
injury–chest of the deceased, it is clear that the accused exceeded
the power given to him in law and caused the death of the deceased
against whom he exercised right of private defence without
premeditation – Absence of good faith is not found in exercise of
right of private defence – In view thereof, offence committed by the
appellant converted to s. 304 Part I – Appellant having already
undergone the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence
committed u/s 304 Part-I, is directed to be released forthwith.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The right to private defence cannot be claimed
by the accused, if disproportionate harm has been caused, while
defending himself or any other person. However, if the accused
has not caused disproportionate harm, then the benefit of
Exception II to Section 300 IPC can be given to the accused.
[Para 11][736-E-F]
1.2 The fateful incident at the hands of appellant was
pursuant to an altercation with the deceased for around 15 minutes,
731
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 731
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
732
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
in the presence of other colleagues. Both the deceased and the
appellant–accused were altercating face-to-face and standing at
a distance of 10 feet from each other. This shows that they could
see the facial expressions of each other clearly and comprehend
the apprehending circumstances accordingly. Taking note of the
fact that owing to the imminent danger perceived by the appellant
from the aiming of rifle at him by the deceased, he fired at the
deceased and killed him. This comes within the ambit of right to
private defence, however, it clearly traverses beyond the
legitimate exercise of the same. The appellant–accused chose to
shoot on a vital part of the body i.e., chest to safeguard himself
from the imminent threat. However, the accused could have
avoided the vital part of the deceased. But absence of good faith
is not found in exercise of right of private defence. However,
having regard to the situs of the injury (i.e. the chest of the
deceased), it is clear that the accused has exceeded the power
given to him in law and has caused the death of the deceased
against whom he exercised right of private defence without
premeditation. In cases of disproportionate harm leading to death
of the aggressor, sentence under Section 304 Part I is the
appropriate sentence. Thus, offence committed by the accused–
appellant will fall under Section 304 Part I IPC. [Para 12, 13]
[737-D-H; 738-A-B]
1.3 Taking into consideration all the material facts, the
conviction under Section 302 IPC passed by the High Court is
set aside and the same is converted to Section 304 Part–I IPC.
[Para 17]739-C-D]
1.4 The appellant has undergone 10 years of actual
imprisonment which amounts to 18 years of imprisonment as per
the concerned State Jail Manual. As the maximum sentence
prescribed for the offence committed under Section 304 Part I,
IPC is 10 years and the appellant is stated to have already
undergone 10 years of actual imprisonment. The appellant is
directed to be released forthwith. [Para 18][739-D-E]
Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1971) 3 SCC
244; James Martin v. State of Kerala (2004) 2 SCC 203;
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 2 SCC 333;
Bhanwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 16
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
733
SCC 657; Udaikumar Pandharinath Jadhav Alias
Munna v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 5 SCC 214:
Trilok Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) 1995 SCC
(Cri) 158; Pathubha Govindji Rathod v. State of Gujarat
(2015) 4 SCC 363 – referred to.
(1971) 3 SCC 244
referred to
Para 10
(2004) 2 SCC 2Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.