RANBIR SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 212 · Decided: 30-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 7 S.C.R. 212 
A 
RANBIR SINGH & ORS. 
v 
STATE OF HARYANA 
Criminal Appeal No. 604 of 2006 
B 
APRIL 30, 2009 
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss.300 Exception 2, 304(Part/), 148, 324 and 323 rlw s.34 
c - Prosecution of eight accused ulss. 148, 302, 324, 323 rlw 
s. 149 /PC - For causing death of one and injuries to three 
persons - Accused taking plea of self defence - Conviction of 
four accused and life sentence by courts below -
On appeal, 
held: Accused has been able to probabalise that the death of 
D the deceased occurred as they acted in excess to their right of 
self-defence - Accused entitled to benefit of Exception 2 to 
s. 300 as they were not the aggressors - Conviction uls. 302 
altered to uls. 304(Part(I) and conviction under other provisions 
maintained - Sentence reduced to the period already 
E undergone i.e. nine years. 
s. 300 Exception 2 - Applicability of - Discussed. 
Evidence- Burden to prove self-defence- Held: Burden 
.. 
to prove self-defence is on accused -
The burden is not that 
F onerous as which lies with prosecution -
Such burden can 
be discharged by probabalising the defence. 
Appellant-accused alongwith four co-accused were 
prosecuted u/ss. 148, 302, 324 and 323 r/w s.149 IPC for 
G 
having caused death of one person and injuries to three 
persons. In the course of the occurrence, appellants-
accused also sustained grievous injuries. They took the 
'-
plea of self-defence. Trial court convicted the accused for 
the offences charged under r/w. s.34 IPC and sentenced 
H 
212 
RANBIR SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA 
213 
them to life imprisonment. High Court confirmed the A 
conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal. 
The question for consideration before this court was 
whether the appellants-accused had been able to 
probablise that the death of the deceased occurred in 
B 
exercise of their right of self-defence and whether they 
., 
exceeded that right. 
~ 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 From the medical evidence, it is sufficiently 
established that death of the deceased was homicidal. The c 
appellant did not challenge this aspect at all. Their plea is 
that the death of the deceased was caused as they 
exceeded their right to private defence. [Paras 9 and 18] 
, 
[218-F; 223·A] 
1.2 The appellants have not set up the right of private D 
defence as a total defence. Their whole emphasis was 
with reference to Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC. The 
existence of good faith is a must before the accused 
claims benefit of this exception. While acting in good faith, E 
if the accused has exceeded the right of self-defence and 
caused death of a person without pre-meditation and 
further he had no intention of causing more harm than 
was necessary for the purpose of the defence although 
in fact more harm was caused, the benefit of Exception 2 
F 
to Section 300 may be available if the accused was not 
the aggressor. [Para 23 & 24] [225-G-H; 226-A-B] 
2. The Court should take an overall view of the case 
and if a right of self-defence is made out from the evidence 
on record, that right should not be construed narrowly G 
because the right of self-defence is a very valuable right 
) 
and it has a social purpose. [Para 21] [224-G-H] 
Vidya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1971 (3) SCC 
244; V Subramani and Anr v. State of TN. 2005 (10) SCC 
358 - relied on. 
H 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
3. The burden of proving self-defence is always on 
the accused but it is not as onerous as the one which lies 
with the prosecution. Such burden can be discharged by 
probablising the defence. The accused may discharge his 
onus by establishing a mere preponderance of 
B probabilities either by laying basis for that plea in the 
cross-examination of prosecution witness or by adducing 
defence evidence. [Para 25] [226-8-C] 
4. In the instant case, initially, some argument took 
place between A-1 and PW-12 with regard to taking out 
C the buffalos from canal; A-1 pushed PW-12 in canal water. 
PW-12 went home crying. Then there was altercation later 
in the evening between PW-1 and A-1. A-1 with the help of 
. A-2 and A-5 is said to have inflicted some injuries to PW-1 
in that altercation. In this back ground, obviously it was 
D PW-1 and his family members who had an axe to grind 
against A-1, A-2 and A-5 and not the accused party. The 
prosecution case about commencement of incident 
appears to be little doubtful. The prosecutio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.