LexRAJ SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 7 S.C.R. 268 RAJ SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA ETC. (CriminalAppeal Nos. 701-702 of2015) APRIL 23, 2015 [T.S. THAKUR, R. BANUMATHI AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 96 to 103, 300 exception 2, 304 c Part I - Culpable homicide - Right to private defence - Injuries on person of appellant not serious in nature - Complainant party were not carrying any arms or deadly weapons - The act on part of accused party of firing shots which resulted in death of victim was not at all to prevent any D injury which sought to be averted or which could have been reasonably apprehended - Appellant-accused acted aggressively - Plea of self defence by appellant was not sustainable - The incident took place in the house of complainant and not in the house of appellant and therefore E appellant not entitled to claim benefit of Exception 2 to s. 300 - Evidence showed that the complainant party neither used fire arms nor any fire arm was found in their possession - Thus, complainant party did not exceed their right of private defence and caused harm that was necessary for purpose of F private defence. G Disposing of the appeals, the Court PER BANUMATHI, J. HELD: 1. To claim right of private defence extending to voluntary causing of death, the accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death H or grievous hurt would be caused to him. The law of 268 RAJ SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA ETC. 269 private defence does not require that the person A assaulted or facing apprehension of an assault must run away for safety. It entitles him to defend himself and law gives him right of private defence. There is no right of private defence where there is no apprehension of danger. Necessity of averting and impending danger B must be present, real or apparent. [Para 17] [280-G-H; 281-A] DharamAndOrs. vs. StateofHaryana, 2006(10)Suppl. SCR 391 : (2007) 15 SCC 241; Bhanwar Singh & Ors. C vs. State of M.P. 2008 (9) SCR 1 : (2008) 16 sec 657; Biran Singh vs. State ofBiharAIR 1975 SC 87, Wassan Singh vs. State of Punjab 1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 703 : (1996) 1 SCC 458, Sekar alias Raja Sekharan vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, T.N., 2002 (3) D Suppl. SCR 113: (2002) 8 sec 354, Buta Singh VS. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 1316 and James Martin vs. State of Kera/a 2003(6) Suppl. SCR 910: (2004) 2 sec 203 - relied on. E 2. The case of the appellant-RS is that complainant party forcibly entered his house and shirted fighting and the appellant-RS had reasonable apprehension that he would be hurt and therefore he fired the few shots in the air, and during the scuffle, the F complainant party tried to forcibly snatch pistol from him and fire was shot which incidentally hit the deceased. DW2, the doctor expressed his opinion about the injuries caused to RP and stated that RP sustained G some bruises and contusions and had pain in the left foot. DW2 examined RJP who was brought to the hospital and there was pain and swelling in the left elbow, pain and swelling in the right wrist. The injuries on the person of the accused were not so serious. The H complainant and his brothers were not carrying any 270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 7 S.C.R. A arms or deadly weapons. The accused-appellants if at all any right accrued in their favour, while defending themselves, acted in a manner which was unduly disproportionate to the injury which they would have sustained at the hands of complainant party who were B not armed with any deadly weapons. Thus, their act of firing shots which resulted in death of the victim- deceased was not at all to prevent any injury which was sought to be averted or which could have been reasonably apprehended. Appellant fired at the C deceased recklessly from a close range indicating that the appellant-accused party were the aggressors. Law does not confer a right of self-defence on a man when he himself was the aggressor. There was no reason 0 warranting interference with the conviction of the appellant-RS under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him. [paras 20 to 22) [283-F- G, H; 284-A-E, F-H; 285-A) 3. So far as acquittal of RP and RJP is concerned, E concurrent findings were recorded by both the trial court as well as the High Court for acquitting them. The appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when the court below ignore
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.