LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAMESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ST A TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH v. RAMESH NOVEMBER 18, 2004 B [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: Section. 96-Right of private defence-Exercise of-Deceased was C passing in front of the house of the accused when his two brothers and mother started pelting stones on him-Thereafter, the accused shot at the deceased who died on the spot-Accused pleaded exercise of right of private defence-Trial court rejected the plea of private defence and convicted the accused under S. 302 holding that the firing was deliberate-However, the D High Court accepted the plea of self-defence and altered the conviction to one under S. 304 Part I-Correctness of Held: The right of private defence is essentially a defensive right which. is available as and when the circumstances clearly justifY it-It is a right of defence, not retribution, expected to repel unlawful aggression and not as a retaliatory measure- E F G The findings of the High Court are vague, unclear and indefensible-Hence, conviction under S. 304 Part I set aside-Conviction under S. 302 upheld. Section JOO-Murder-Exceptions I and 2-Distinction between- Held: Exception I relates to grave and sudden provocation while the other relates to exercise of right of privat(! defence. According to the prosecution, the deceased and PW-I were returning after their examination and were passing in front of the house of the acquitted-accused when his two sons and wife started pelting stones on them. Thereafter, the respondent-accused fired a shot at the deceased who died on the spot. The trial court convicted the respondent-accused under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 holding that the firing was deliberate and rejected the respondent's plea of exercise of right of private defence. However, the High Court accepted the plea of self-defence and altered H the conviction to one under Section 304 Part I IPC. Hence the appeal. 152 ST A TE v. RAMESH 153 Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. The right of private defence is essentially a defensive right circumscribed by the governing statute i.e. the Penal Code, 1860 available only when the circumstances clearly justify it. It should not A be allowed to be pleaded or availed of as a pretext for a vindictive, B aggressive or retributive purpose of offence. It is a right of defence, not of retribution, excepted to repel unlawful aggression and not as a retaliatory measure. While providing for the exercise of the right, care has been taken in the IPC not to provide and has not devised 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 C defend no longer survived. [161-C, DJ Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration, AIR (1966) 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 D Punjab, AIR (1979) SC 577; Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR (1976) SC 2263; Biran Singh v. State of Bihar AIR (1975) SC 87; Wassan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1996) 1 SCC 458; Sekar v. State, [2002) 8 SCC 354 and Butta Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1991) SC 1316, relied on. Salim Zia v. State of U.P., AIR (1979) SC 391; Jai Dev v. State of E Punjab, AIR (1963) SC 612 and Vidya Singh v. State of MP., AIR (1971) SC 1875, referred to. Russell On Crime I Ith Edn., Vol. I p. 49, referred to. F 2. The High Court has acted on surmises aud conjectures to conclude certain aspects. The High Court held that the case is covered by either Exception 1 or Exception 2 to Section 300, as injuries on the accused were not explained. The findings are vague, unclear and indefensible. Undue importance was attached to some superficial injuries on the accused. 1t is trite that if there are ~ome minor or superficial injuries G suffered by the accused that shall not affect a credible and cogent prosecution version even ifthe prosecution has not explained the injuries. The vacillating nature of the conclusions is apparent because the High Court was not very sure as to whether Exception 1 or Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC applied. They operate in entirely different fields. One H 154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A relates to grave and sudden provocation and the other relates to exercise of right of private defence. (161-E; 162-B, C, DJ 3. The High Court was not justified, therefore, to alter the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.