LexKATTA SURENDERA versus STATE OF A.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 1190 A KATTA SURENDERA v. STATE OF A.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1525 of 2007) B JUNE 13, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 : s. 302 and 304 (Part I) - Murder- Dispute between par- c ties - Fatal blow to deceased - Conviction uls. 302 with life ~ r imprisonment by courts below - Case of accused that he was exercising right of private defence - Held: Not tenable - Even if plea of accused is accepted, it ceased long before blow was given by accused - It cannot be said that because single blow D was given offence not covered uls. 302 - It depends on sev- era/ factors - On facts, conviction altered to s. 304 (Part /)- Custodia/ sentence of 10 years imposed. ss. 96 - 101 - Right of private defence -Availability and E extent of - Commencement and continuance of the right - Stated. There was a dispute between the residents of two villages with regard to laying of the road. On the fateful day, the accused persons armed with weapons and bag F containing bombs and sticks went to the place where D- 1, D-2 and others were working and attacked them. A-13 and A-2 hurled bombs and bomb of A-13 exploded. A-1 stabbed D-1 with a dagger and he succumbed to his inju- ries. A-2 and A-4 attacked D-2. Other accused attacked G the prosecution witnesses. Complaint was lodged. lnves- tigation was carried out. Trial court convicted A-1 for the • offence punishable uls.302 IPC and imposed life impris- I'- onment with fine. Four accused were convicted u/s.324 IPC and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. Other ac- H 1190 ,, KATTA SURENDERA v. STATE OF A.P. 1191 cused were acquitted. Appeal was filed. A-1 pleaded that A he exercised right of private defence; and that as single blow was given offence was not covered u/s.302 IPC and offence should be altered to s.304 Part II IPC; High Court did not accept the plea and upheld the conviction of A-1. Hence the present appeal. B Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. A plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and speculation. While considering whether the right of private defence is available to an ac- c cused, it is not relevant whether he may have a chance to inflict severe and mortal injury on the aggressor. In order to find whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, the entire incident must be examined with care and viewed in its proper setting. Section 97 IPC deals with 0 the subject-matter of right of private defence. The plea of right of private defence comprises the body or property (i) of the person exercising the right, or (ii) of any other per- son; and the right may be exercised in the case of any of- fence against the body, and in the case of offences of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, and attempts at such E offences in relation to property. Section 99 lays down the· limits of the right of private defence. Sections 96 and 98 give a right of private defence against certain offences and acts. The right given under Sections 96 to 98 and 100 to 106 is controlled by Section 99. To claim a right of private F defence extending to voluntary causing of death, the ac- cused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous· hurt would be caused to him. The bur- den is on the accused to show that he had a right of pri- G vate defence which extended to causing of death. Sections 100 and 101 IPC define the limit and extent of right of pri- vate defence and continuance of the right of private de- fence of body and property respectively. The right com- mences, as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger H 1192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R. A to the body arises from an attempt, or threat to commit the offence, although the offence may not have been commit- ted but not until there is that reasonable apprehension. The right lasts so long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body continues. As soon as the cause for B reasonable apprehension disappears and the threat has either been destroyed or has been put to route, there can be no occasion to exercise the right of private defence. [Para 10] [1195- G & H; 1196-A,B,C,D,E & F] Jai Dev v State of Punjab 1963 (3) SCC 489; Raj Pal v. c State of Haryana 2006(9) SCC 678 - relied on. 1- 1.2. In the instant case, even if it is accepted that at ,_ some point of time the appellant was exe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.