LexSANTOKH SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 412 A SANTOKH SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2009 B FEBRUARY 12, 2009 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ) _.._. Penal Code, 1860: c s.s. 300, Exception 4, 302, s.304(part I) and ss. 97 and 100 - On a dispute regarding land, accused fired at his opponent leading to his death - Accused also received fire- arm injury from his own weapon - Plea of right of private defence - Rejected by trial court- Conviction u/s 302 affirmed D by High Court - HELD: Trial court and High Court correctly held that it was not a case of right of private defence - However, ,.. .... conviction altered from s.302 to s.304 (part-I) with a sentence · of 10 years imprisonment. The appellant and his wife were prosecuted for E murder. The prosecution case was that on a dispute regarding certain agricultural land, the appellant fired a shot from his pistol at his opponent (who later succumbed to his injuries in the hospital). The appellant was -4 overpowered by a witness and in the process a shot from ·~ F the pistol also hit the appellant himself. The trial court convicted the appellant of the offence charged and acquitted his wife. The plea of right of private defence raised on behalf of the convict on the premise that the land in question was in his possession, was rejected by G the High Court, and the conviction was upheld. ...... ~ In the appeal filed by the accused, besides reiterating "-.- ' the plea of right of private defence, it was alternatively pleaded for the appellant that, in any event, the case was H 412 / + ~ _,_ /> )- .... SANTOKH SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB 413 covered by Exception 4 to s. 300 IPC and, as such, he A could not have been convicted and sentenced u/s 302 IPC. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: 1.1 So far as the question of possession of B the land in dispute is concerned, the High Court did not find any substance in the plea it was in possession of the appellant. [para 6] [418-A, B] 1.2 The number of injuries is not always a safe c criterion for determining who the aggressor was. It cannot be stated as a universal rule that whenever the injuries are on the body of the accused persons, a presumption must necessarily be raised that the accused persons had caused injuries in exercise of the right of private defence. D The defence has to further establish that the injuries so caused on the accused probabilise the version of right of private defence. Non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance. E But mere non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case in all cases. [para 8] [418-C, D, E] Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1976 SC 2263 - referred to. F 1.3 To claim a right of private defence extending to voluntarily causing of death, the accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous G hurt would be caused to him. The burden is on the accused to show that he had a right of private defence which extended to causing of death. No evidence much less cogent and credible was adduced in this regard. As rightly observed by the trial court and the High Court, there H \ 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A was no question of exercise of right of private defence as -'" claimed by the appellant. [para 8 and 11-12] (419-C, D; 420-8, C] Jai Dev v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 612; Rizan and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Chief Secretary, B Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhatttisgarh 2003 (2) SCC 661; and Sucha Singh and Anr v. State of Punjab 2003 (7) SCC 643 - referred to. \ 2. As regards the applicability of Exception 4 to s.300 + IPC, for bringing in its operation, it has to be established ' c that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, upon a sudden . quarrel, without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Heat of passion requires that there must be no D time for the passions to cool down. In the instant case, "Jf.. the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account ....._ of the verbal altercation in the beginning. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend up
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.