LexRADHE versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2008] 10 S.C.R. 110 RAD HE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (Criminal Appeal No. 999 of 2008) JULY 7, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM,JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 300- Murder- Prosecution - Injured eye-witnesses-- Fatal injuries caused to the deceased - Conviction of accused and acquittal of co-accused by courts below- On appeal, held: In view of the brutal manner of assault and other facts of the case, impugned order not interfered with - Plea of right to pri- vate defence not proved. s. 300 clause (3) - Meaning and scope of - Discussed. s. 299 and 300 - 'Culpable homicide' and 'Murder' - Dis~ tinction between - Discussed. ss. 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 to 106- Right to private defence - Scope of - Held: Plea of right io private defence cannot be based on surmises and speculations - To claim such plea accused must show existence of circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehension of either death or griev- ous injury - The right lasts so long as the reasonable appre- hension of the danger to the body continues ~ Burden to show right of private defence is on the accused - Evidence - Bur- den to prove right of private defence. Appellant-accused, alongwith two co-accused, was prosec ... ted for having caused death of one person and · for causing injuries to others. The prosecution case was that the appellant-accused chopped both the legs of the deceased. When three eye-witnesses came to his re~cue they were assaulted by the appellant-accused and the co- 110 r .. } RADHE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 111 " accused. Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused and A ~>-- acquitted the co-accused. High Court Upheld the order of trial court. "" In appeal to this court appellant contended that his conviction was not called for as the assault done by him B was in exercise of private defence; and that the complain- ant party named him assuming that he might have as- saulted, because he was present at the place of occur- rence at the relevant time. Dismissing the appeal, the Court c 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- -< cused, it is not relevant whether he may have a ·chance to inflict severe and mortal injury on the aggressor. In order D 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. [Para 6] [116-G,H ; 117-A] 1.2 To claim a right of private defence extending to E voluntary causing of death, the accused 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 burden is on the ac- I, cused to show that he had a right of private defence which extended to causing of death. [Para 6] [117-C & D] F 1.3 The right commences, as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an at- tempt, or threat, or commit the offence, although the of- fence may not have been committed but not until that there G is that reasonable apprehension. The right lasts so long " -~ as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body ... continues. [Para 7] [117-E & F] Jai Dev v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 612; Rizan and Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Chief Secretary, H 112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhatttisgarh 2003 (2) SCC 6S1; Sucha Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab 2003 (7) SCC 643 - referred to .. 1.4 Merely because there was a quarrel and accused persons claimed to have sustained injuries, that does not 8 confer a right of private defence extending to the extent ~f causing death as in this case. Though such right cannot be weighed in golden scales, it has to be established that the accused persons were under such grave apprehen- sion about the safety of their life and property that retalia- C tion to the extent done was absolutely necessary. No evi- dence much less cogent and credible was adduced in this regard. The right of private defence as claimed by the ac- cused has been rightly discarded. [Para 9] [118-A,B & C] 0 2.1 The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of 'murder' and 'culpable homicide' seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300 I
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.