JESU ASIR SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 92 · Decided: 20-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JESU ASIR SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
STA TE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
AUGUST 20, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT ANO D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 96 to 106, 302, 309 and 341: 
Assault and murder-Right of private defence-Accused Al, A2 and A3 
C allegedly attacking deceased at the instigation of their mother, accused A4-
Deceased succumbed to the injuries-Trial Court found al.I the accused 
guilty of committing the offences u!Ss. 302 and 341 /PC and A4, in addition, 
for committing the offence u!s. 309 /PC and sentenced them to undergo life 
imprisonment-Upholding the conviction of accused Al, A2 and A3, High 
D Court directed acquittal of A4-0n appeal, Held: Number of injuries not 
always a safe criterion for determining who the aggressor was-Non-
explanation of injuries sustained by accused at the time of occurrence/in the 
course of altercation is an important circumstance, but mere non-explanation 
of injuries by the prosecution may not affect the case of the prosecution when 
the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and evidence clear and 
E cogent-A plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and 
speculations-In order to find whether such right is available or not, entire 
incident must be examined with care and 'viewed in its proper setting-To 
claim the right of private defence the accused must show the existence of 
circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending death or 
F grievous hurt-The right lasts so long as reasonable apprehension nf the 
danger to the body continues-Merely because accused persons sustained 
injuries, that does not confer such right to the extent of causing death as in 
the present case-No cogent and credible evidence adduced by the accused 
to establish that they were under grave apprehension about safety of their 
lives and property that retaliation to the extent of causing death of the 
G deceased was absolutely necessary-Hence, appeal dismissed on merit. 
H 
According to the prosecution, there was enmity between the families of 
the deceased and the accused persons as wife of the deceased started living 
with accused, Al by deserting her husband and child. The deceased and his 
92 
JESU ASIR SINGH v. ST A TE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
93 
child were living only with PW.I, the informant. On the fateful day, accused A 
persons, Al to A3, at the instance of their mother, A4 attacked the deceased 
fatally, resulting in his death. PWI raised an alarm, all the accused made 
good thei_r escape with the weapons of offences in their hands. Informant took 
the deceased to the Government Hospital, where he was declared dead. A 
complaint was lodged by her in the Police Station. The bloodstained apparels B 
of the deceased were recovered by the Police. The deceased stated before the 
Causality Medical Officer in the Government Headquarters Hospital that 
injuries have been sustained by him at the hands of three known persons. On 
the same day, Al also appeared before the Medical Officer and stated that the 
injuries have also been sustained by him at the hands of a known person. 
After completion of the investigation, charges were framed against the accused O 
persons. Trial Court, relying on the evidence of PW 1, found all.-the four 
accused persons guilty and found Al to A3 guilty for committing the offences 
punishable u/Ss. 302 and 341 and A4 for committing the offence punishable 
u/s. 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo 
imprisonment for life. An appeal was preferred by the accused persons before 
the High Court. The High Court upheld the conviction of accused Al, A2 and D 
A3 while discarding the right of private defence but directing acquittal of co-
accused, A4. Hence the present appeal filed by the convicts. 
Accused-appellant contended that the prosecution version is 
unbelievable; that the presence of PWl at the place of occurrence is highly E 
doubtful; that when the evidence has been discarded in respect of A4, 
conviction could not have been maintained against Al to A3, the present 
appellants; and that the aspect of right of private defence has not been properly 
considered by the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
• 
HELD: 1.1. The number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for 
determining who the aggressor was. It cannot be stated as a universal rule 
that whenever the injuries are on the body of the accused persons, a 
presumption must necessarily be raised that the accused pe

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