LexRANVEER SINGH versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2009] 1 S.C.R. 458 RANVEER SINGH II. STATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2009) JANUARY 21, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. s.304 (Part I) rlw ss.109 and 34 - Son of accused inflicting gun shot injuries to deceased resulting in her death - Father exhorting son to fire gun shot - Also asked him to get revolver when saw complainant side coming to the scene · 0 of occurrence - Conviction of father u/s.302 rlw s.109 - However, High Court altered the conviction to s.304 (Part I) rl w ss. 109 and 34 holding that even if it is accepted that at some ·point of time accused was exercising right of private defence, the same was exceeded.,,... Interference with - Held: Not called E for. ss. 96 to 106 - Right of private defence - Exercise of- When. According to the prosecution case, there was some .., F quarrel between P and appellant's sister-in-law. Next day, on exhortation by appellant, his son inflicted gun shot injuries to complainant's sister which resulted in her death. Initially, appellant and his son had thrashed P to ground. The complainant, prosecution witnesses along G with complainant's sister had reached the place of occurrence hearing the shouts of P. Seeing them, appellant had asked his son to get revolver from home. FIR was lodged. Investigation was carried out. Appellant's son being a minor, his case was referred to Juvenile H 458 RANVEER SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. 459 >· court. Trial court convicted the appellant u/s.302 r/w s.109 A or in alternative u/s.302 r/w s.34 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment. High Court altered the conviction to s.304 (Part I) r/w ss.109 and 34 IPC and sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default stipulation. Hence the present appeal. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The right of private defence is essentially a defensive right circumscribed by the governing statute i.e. the IPC, available only when the circumstances clearly c justify it. It should not be allowed to be pleaded or availed as a pretext for a vindictive, aggressive or retributive purpose of offence. It is a right of defence, not of retribution, expected to repel unlawful aggression and not as retaliatory measure. While providing fQr exercise D o.t the right, care has been taken in IPC not to provide a mechanism whereby an attack may be a pretence for killing. A right to defend does not include a right to launch an offensive, particularly when the need to defend no longer survived. [Para 15] [467-F-G] E V. Subramani and. Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu 2005 (10) SCC 358 and Salim and Ors. v. State of Haryana SLP (Crl.) No.463 of 2008 disposed of on 11.8.2008, relied on. 1.2. In the instant case the High Court has rightly held F that even if it is accepted that at some point of time the appellant was exercising the right of private defence, the same was exceeded and has rightly found him guilty u/ s. 304 Part I, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for five years. The sentence as imposed G 'f' cannot be considered to be harsh. On payment of fine of Rs.20,000/-, same was to be paid to the heirs of the deceased. There appears to be no infirmity in the order of the High Court. [Para 17) [468-B-C] H 460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009J 1 S.C.R. ' ' A Munshi Ram and Ors. v. Delhi Administration AIR 1968 SC 702; State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima AIR 1975 SC 1478; State of U.P. v. Mohd. Musheer Khan AIR 1977 SC 2226; Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 577; Salim Zia v. State of U.P. AIR 1979 SC 391; Jai Dev. v. State B of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 612; Biran Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1975 SC 87; Wassan Singh v. State of Punjab (1.!396) 1 SCC 458; Sekar alias Raja Sekharan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, T.N. 2002 (8) SCC 354; Butta Singh v. The State of Punjab AIR 1991 SC 1316 and Vidhya Singh c v. State of M.P. AIR 1971 SC 1857, referred to. Russel on Crime 11th Edition Volume Ip 49, referred to. Case Law Reference: D AIR 1968,SC 702 Referred to. Para 7 AIR 1975 SC 1478 Referred to. Para 7 AIR 1977 SC 2226 Referred to. Para 7 E AIR 1979 SC 577 Referred to. Para 7 AIR 1979 SC 391 Referred to. Para 7 AIR 1963 SC 612 Referred to. Para 10 F AIR 1975 SC 87 Referred to. Para 11 (1996) 1 sec 458 Referred to. Para 11 2002 (8) sec 354 Referred to. Para 11 AIR 1991 SC 1316 Referred to. P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.