LexMANJEET SINGH versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 796
A
MANJEET SINGH
B
c
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1695 of 2005)
APRIL 25, 2014
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 96 to' 106 - Things done in private defence.-:: Held.:
,Under s. 96, nothing is an offence, which is done in the
exercise of the right of private defence ~ the extent' and
limitations of the right of private defence is presc~ibed uls 96
to 106, /PC. Such a right can be exercised only to defend the
D unlawful action and not to retaliate -
Neither the accused nor
his two companions in the statements recorded uls 313
Cr.P. C., have stated that the deceased and his companions
were the aggressors and that the accused was acting in
exercise of the right of private defence - There is nothing on
E the record to suggest that the accused or his companions
received injuries at the hands of the d.eceased or the
deceased tried to snatch the carbine, of the accused ..;. On the
contrary, evidence of PWs supports prosecution case that it
was the accused who was the aggressor and that he had not
F acted in private defence -
Non-explanation of the injuries on
the person of the accused and his two companions, which were
found simple in nature, cannot be held to be fatal to the
prosecution case.
G
ss.304 and 324 /PC rlw s.27 of Arms Act - Culpable
homicide not af(lounting to murder - Death of victim caused
by fire arms - Injuries to witnesses - Conviction .bY courts
below u/s 302 - Held: Evidence produced against accused
does not show that he had any motive to cause death of
H
796
MANJEET SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL
797
PRADESH
deceased or had intended to cause such bodily injuries which
A
were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
of deceased -
Evidence on record also does not establish
that injuries caused on the body of deceased must in all
probability cause his death or like{y to cause his death -
On
th~ spur of moment, during the heat of exchange of words,
B
accused caused injuries on the body of deceased which
caused his death -
Therefore, 7ngredients of murder as
t;fefined in s.300, IP"C, have not been established against
accused - He was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting
to murder L. Aacordingly, accused-appellant convicted uls c
304 /PC and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment with fine -
His conviction 1::1/s 302 set aside - Conviction aod sentence
u/s ~24 /PC and 27 of Arms Act, maintained.
The appellant and two others were 'prosecuted for
(<ommitting murder of one of the companions of the PWs
D
.
'
and causing gunshot injuries to them. The trial court
convicted the appellant u/s 302 and 324 IPC as also s. 27
of the Arms Act and sentenced him to various terms of
imprisonment including life imprisonment u/s 302 IPC.
The other two accused were acquitted by the trial court
E
·of all the charges. The High Court affirmed the conviction
of the appellant and sentences imposed upon him by the
trial court.
In the instant appeal it was contended for the
F
appellant that he acted in exercise of the right of private
defence.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Under s.96 IPC, nothing is an offence
G
which is done in the exercise of the right of private
defence. The extent and limitations of the right of private
defence is prescribed u/s 96 to 106, IPC. Such a right can
be exercised only to defend the unlawful action and not
to retaliate. [para 19] [807-C, 808-A]
H
798
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 5 S.C.R.
A
George Dominic Varkey v. The State of Kera/a, (1971)
3 SCC 275; Moti Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 9
sec 494 - referred to.
1.2. In the instant case, neither the accused nor his
8 two companions in the statements recorded u/s 313
Cr.P.C., have stated that the deceased and his
companions were the aggressors and that the accused
was acting in exercise of the right of private defence. In
fact, their case is that of total denial. There is nothing on
the record to suggest that the accused or his companions
C received injuries at the hands of the deceased or the
deceased tried to snatch the carbine of the accused. No
evidence has been brought on record that the deceased
and his companions entered the Hall of the Hotel with_
arms. During the course of cross-examination of the
D prosecution witnesses, especially PW.5, PW.6, PW.7,
PW.9 ~nd PW.12, an attempt has been made on behalf of
the accused to set up theExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.