LexSADHU SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2009] 5 S.C.R. 344 SADHU SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 598 of 2009) MARCH 31, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 96-106 - Right of C private defence - Availability and extent of- Plea, when can be raised and burden of proof - Stated - On facts, deceased succumbed to injuries inflicted by accused persons - Conviction and sentence uls. 302 and s. 27 of Arms Act by courts below negating plea of exercise of private defence D raised by accused - Justification of - Held: On facts, plea of exercise of private defence not sustainable - However, conviction altered to s. 304 (Part I) with custodial sentence of 10 years -Arms Act, 1959 - s. 27. E The question which arose for consideration in the appeal was whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for offence punishable uls. 302 IPC and s. 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 negating the plea of right of private defence raised by the appellants. F Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. A plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and speculation. While G considering whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, it is not relevant whether he may have a chance to inflict severe and mortal injury on the aggressor. In order to find whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, the entire incident H 344 1.- , ., ' - SADHU SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 345 must be examined with care and viewed in its proper A setting. To claim a 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 or grievous hurt would be caused to him. The burden is on the B accused to show that he had a right of private defence which extended to causing of death. Sections 100 and 101, IPC define the limit and extent of right of private defence. [Para 6] (348-G-H; 349-A-C] 1.2. Sections 102 and 105, IPC deal with C commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of body and property respectively. The right commences, as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt, or threat to commit the offence, although the offence may not have D been committed but not until that there is reasonable apprehension. The right lasts so long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body continues. [Para 7] (349-E] 1.3. When the factual scenario is examined it becomes crystal clear that even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments that the accused persons were at some point of time exercising the right of private defence, E it was exceeded. That being so, the plea regarding F exercise of right of private defence cannot be sustained. However, the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part I IPC. The conviction is altered accordingly. Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice. [Para 9] (350-A-B] ' G Rizan and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhatttisgarh 2003 (2) SCC 661; Sucha Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab 2003 (7) SCC 643 and Bihari Rai v. State of Bihar SLP (Crl.) H ""'"' 346 SUPREME COURT REPOR7~ ;~009) 5 S.C.R. 4 , A No.862 of 2007, relied on. Jai Dev v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 612, referred ' ' ' to. Case Law Reference: B AIR 1963 SC 612 Referred to. Para 7 ( ' 2003 (2) sec 661 Relied on. Para 8 2003 (7) sec 643 Relied on. Para 8 c CRIMINAL APPELL.A TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 598 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 26.2.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal D No. 804-08/1997. ,_ .. K.T.S. Tulsi, Raj Kamal, Rishi Malhotra for the Appellant. Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra and Sanjay Katya! _, E for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. F 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the • conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section .. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short 'Arms Act'). Three persons faced trlal for commission of murder of Jagdev Singh ._ G (hereinafter referred
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.