KASMIRI LAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 29-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: FAIZAN UDDIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

KASMIRI LAL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUN.TAB 
AUGUST 29, 1996 
(FAIZAN UDDIN AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: Sectio11s 96, 97, 101, 302, 307, 326 and 452 r/w. S. 
149. 
Private defence-Right of-Accused attacked deceased--Accused also C 
sustained injuries-lncident occun-ed i11 first floor of dwelling apartme11t of 
deceased--Held: accused i11vited attack on themselves-Hence, accused 11ot 
entitled to right of private defe11ce. 
Sectio11 300 Thirdly-Severe i11jwies i11flicted 011 deceased--Repeated 
assaults made 011 back of deceased which caused massive damage to vital D 
organs•-Held.: Injwies sufficient i11 ordi11a1y cow~·e of nature to cause 
death-Act of accused squarely fell within pwview of Section 300 171ird-
ly-Hence, conviction under Section 302 justified. 
The four appellants were convicted under Sections 302, 307 326 and E 
452 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced 
to various terms of imprisonment. 
The prosecution case was that the four appellants alongwith the 
acqmtted accused were attemptin' to· break opn die tock of the room in 
ground floor which was in .possession of P.W. 14 and, therefore, the F 
deceased directed his son, P.W. 12, to ao (Ind inforlll P.W. 14 about the 
same. When P.W. 12 came down aad was in the court-yard of the around 
floor, the appellant No. 1 armed with IUl axe, appellant No. 4 armed with 
a Sua, appellant No. 2 armed witli a Sota lllld appellant No. 3 armed with 
a knife and the acquitted accused armed w.iUl a hsauner were seen there. G 
When the appellant No. 1 raised a Lalkara that P.W. 12 should not be . 
allowed to escape. _ThereupOB , P.W. 12 was l.lffaulted by the appellants. 
On IJiustainiug the in.juries P.W. 12 ran ~ 
t@· the first floor but the 
appellants as well as the acquitted accused chased; ki;i:n upto the first floor 
where appellant No. 1 inflicted an axe blow ou the ~d of the deceased as 
a result of which he fell down. Thereafter, the appellant No. 4 Inflicted H 
335 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
repeated Sua blows on his back. When P.W. 9 came forward to .save the 
deceased from further assaults, appellant No. 4 inflicted Sua blows on his 
arm. At this stage, when other inmates of deceased tried to intervene, they 
were also assaulted by the appellants. A First Information Report was 
lodged and a a post-mortem was held. 
B 
On the basis. of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, 
the trial came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the four 
accused were fully established. This finding was upheld by the High Court. 
Being aggrieved the appellants preferred the present appeal. 
C 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the appellants were 
the victims since the incident had occurred in the ground floor of the 
appellants' house and the appellants were entitled to right of private 
defence of their person; that the fact that all the injuries on the deceased 
were on his back and not on his neck or head showed that the appellants 
had no intention to kill the victim; and, therefore, the offence was punish-
D able under Section 304 Part II of the Code. 
E 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of right 
of private defence of person or property, for purpose of repelling an 
unlawful aggression within certain limits. Strictly speaking the right of 
private defence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is entirely a preventive 
measure provided to a person or party who is un.lawfully attacked by 
another person or party, to dispel such attack. But there is no such right 
of private defence available under the Code against an act which is in itself 
an offence. The Law does not confer a right of self defence on a person who 
invites an attack on himself by his owu attack on another. The principle 
of right of self defence cannot legitimately be utilised as a shield to justify 
an act of aggression. A person who is unlawfully attacked has every right 
to counteract and attack upon his assailant and cause such injury as may 
G be necessary to ward off the apprehended danger or threat. [345-B-E] 
1.2. Jn the instant case, it is conclusively found, on the basis of 
positive evidence, that the incident had occurred in the first floor occupied 
by the complainant party and the appellant themselves were the trouble-
shooters and aggressors having attacked the complainant party and the 
H deceased in their

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