MADAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 855 · Decided: 11-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 10 S.C.R. 855 
MADAN AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No.1058 of 2008) 
JULY 11, 2008 
B 
~ 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 r. w. s. 149 - Evidence Act, 1872 
- ss.97 to 105 - Right of private defence -Appellants entered 
the house of the deceased at night- Assaulted him with lath is c 
resulting in his death -
Trial Court convicted them under 
ss. 302 t: w. s. 149 and sentenced to life imprisonment - High 
Court turned down the plea of right of private defence, how-
ever altered the finding of trial Court that appellants were in-
jured in the same incident in which the deceased and injured D 
"' -+ 
witnesses were assaulted - On appeal, Held.: Evidence show 
that the appellants were up to some stage exercising the right 
to protect and defend their properties - But thereafter they 
exceeded the right - Therefore, conviction altered to one u/ 
s. 304 Part I - In the interest of justice, sentence reduced to 10 
E 
years. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 97 to 105 - Right of private de-
fence - Exercise of, when available. 
The prosecution case was that on the fateful night 
F 
.. 
~ 
the deceased, his wife PW-2 and his daughter PW-1 were 
sleeping inside their house. The appellants along with 
other 2 accused broke open the wooden door and while 
abusing the inmates, reached inside the courtyard. They 
told deceased that they would not allow him to take his 
buffallows from their field and asked as to why deceased G 
made a complaint in Tehsil Court. They also threatened 
-~ 
to eliminate him. Thereafter they assaulted deceased with 
lathi. When PW-1 and PW-2 tried to save the deceased, 
they were also assaulted. The deceased fell unconscious 
855 
H 
856 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 
A and died on way to Police Station. The Trial Court, con-
victed them under s.302 IPC r.w. s.149 and s.323 r.w. s.149 
IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, High 
Court turned down the.stand of appellants that they exer-
cised dght of private defence. High Court however al-
8 
tered the finding of trial Court that appellants were injured 
y-
.:_ 
iii the same incident in which the deceased and injured 
witnesses were assaulted. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
c · 
· HELD: 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-
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 
+ ., 
D an accused, the entire incident must be examined with 
care and viewed in its proper setting. [Para 6] [859-G, 
SSO~A,B]. 
JaiDev .v. State of Punjab AIR (1963) SC 612; Rizan 
E and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Chief Secretary, 
Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhatttisgarh (2003) 2 SCC 
661; Sucha Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 
643; Raj Pal and Ors. v. The State of Haryana (2006) 9 SCC 
678. - relied on. 
F 
2. The High Court has in part; accepted the stand of 
the appellants that they were exercising the right of pri~ 
vate defence, but at the same time the evidence also 
shows that the appellants committed criminal trespass. 
Therefore, they cannot claim the benefit of exception of 
G having acted in exercise of right of private defence. On a 
combined reading of the judgments of the trial Court and 
the High Court it is clear that the evidence is to the effect 
that the accused appellants were upto some stage exer-
cising the right to protect and defend their properties. But 
H thereafter they exceeded the right. Therefore, this appears 
MADAN & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA 
857 
)' 
PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
to be. a case where instead of convicting the appellants A 
under s.302 IPC it would be proper to convict the appel-
lants for offence punishable under s. 304 Part I, IPC. Cus-
todial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of jus-
tice. [Paras 9,10] [861-C,D,E] 
.. 
.., 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
B 
No. 1058 of 2008 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.5.2007 of 
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, bench at Indore in Crl. Ap-
peal No. 1246 of 1997 
c 
Navin Kumar Singh and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appel-
I ants. 
Dr. N.M. Ghatate, C.D. Singh, Merusagar Samantaray and 
-; ..,. 
Sunny Chowdhary for the Respondent. 
D 
The Judgm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.