SEKAR @ RAJA SEKHARAN versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T. NADU

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 113 · Decided: 03-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SEKAR @ RAJA SEKHARAN 
A 
v. 
STATE R\'!:P. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T. NADU 
OCTOBER 3, 2002 
[ARJJIT PASAYAT AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 304 Part I, Exception IV to Section 
300 and Sect/on 96-:-Murder and Culpable Homicide not amounting to 
murder-Right of private defence-Availability of-Altercation between parties C 
developing Into assault leading to death of one person-Accused taking plea 
/hat assault made in exercise of right of private defence-Trial Court rejecting 
the plea, convicting accused under section 302 and sentencing him to life 
impr/sonmf!nt-Hlgh Court upholding conviction-On appeal held, courts below 
right in rejecting the plea since the accused inflicted a further blow on the 
deq(#ased. after deceased fell down-Since there was no pre-meditation and D 
assaults were given by the accused during the course of sudden quarrel, case 
ffllls under exception IV to section 300 !PC, hence accused convicted under 
secti<;m J04 Part /--Sentence reduced to ten years imprisonment. 
Aocordlng to the prosecution one P impounded a sheep that was 
clestroylng his crops. Appellant-accused and others untied it from the rope E 
which led to exchange of hot words between P and appellant-accused. It 
is 111leged that accused lnntcted blows to Pas a result of which he fell down. 
Appellant-accused again Inflicted another blow on his neck which led to 
his death. There were eye-witnesses to the occurrence. FIR was lodged. 
Appellant-accused pleaded that he was falsely implicated and assaults were p 
made In exercise of right of private defence. Trial Court placed reliance 
on evidence of prosecution witnesses and convicted appellant-accused 
under section 302 IPC. High Court upheld the conviction. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Appellant contended that trial court and High Court brushed aside G 
the evidence of witnesses examined to substantiate the stand of right of 
private defence; and that section 302 IPC was not applicable since as per 
prosecution version assaults were made in course of a sudden quarrel. 
Respondent-State contended that after analysis of the factual H 
.113 
114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A position, trial Court as well as High Court concluded that the accused was 
responsible for the death of the deceased and right of private defence was 
not available to the accused. 
B 
c 
Partly allo~ing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: LI. To claim right of private defence extending to voluntary 
causing 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 accused to show that 
he had a right of private defence which extended to causing of death. 
(118-H; 119-A-BI 
1.2. l\ plea of right of private defence canllilt be based on surmises 
and speculation. In order to find whether the right of private defence is 
available to an accused or not, it is not relevant whether he may have a 
chance to inflict severe and mortal injury on the aggressor. The entire 
D incident must be examined with care and viewed in its proper setting. The 
injuries received by the accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the 
injuries caused by the accused and the circumstances whether the accused 
had time to have recourse to public authorities are all relevant factors to 
be considered. (118-E, F; 119-D-El 
E 
Muashi Ram 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; Mahindra Pal v. State of Punjab, AIR (1979) 
SC 577; Sa/ima Zia v. State of U.P. AIR (1979) SC 391; Lakshmi Singh v. 
State of Bihar, AIR (1976) SC 2263 and Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, AIR 
p (1963) SC 612, referred to. 
2.1'. In the instant case, in view of the evidence of prosecution 
witnesses implicating the accused, plea of the accused about his innocence 
cannot be accepti;d. In fact, the occurrence has been accepted but the plea 
was one of exercise of right of private defence. The plea relating to exercise 
G of right of private defence has been rightly rejected by the courts below 
since it is in evidence that accused dealt a further blow on the neck, after 
the deceased had fallen down after receiving blows on other parts of the 
body. ( 116-F, GI 
H 
2.2.'There was an altercation between the accused and the deceased. 
SEKAR@RAIA SEKHARAN "·STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

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