THAMMU PANDURANGA RAO & ANR. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2013] 5 S.C.R. 455 · Decided: 26-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 5 S.C.R. 455 
THAMMU PANDURANGA RAO & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1132 of 2009) 
APRIL 26, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
A 
8 
ss.304 (Part If), 323 and 325 - Prosecution for causing c 
death and injuries - Conviction by trial court u/ss. 304, 323 
and 325 - High Court modified the conviction u/s. 304 to 304 
(Part If) and reduced the sentence - On appeal, held: High 
Court order passed after proper analysis of the evidence -
Hence does not calf for interference - High Court order upheld. 
0 
s.97 - Right to private defence - Exercise of- Held: Right 
to private defence should be used only as a shield to avert 
an attack ~ It should not be vindicitve and cannot be used to 
retaliate - It ca'!not be exercised for causing more harm than 
necessary. 
E 
The appellants-accused Nos.1 and 2 alongwith other 
3 accused, were prosecuted for causing death of one and 
causing injuries to two (i.e. PWs 1 and 2). Appellants-
accused (A-1 and A-2) were convicted by the trial court. 
F 
A-1 was convicted u/s. 304 and 323 IPC and was 
sentenced to 10 years RI and six months RI respectively. 
A-2 was convicted u/s. 304 and 325 IPC and was 
sentenced to 10 years RI and fine of Rs.500/- with default 
clause. High Court partly allowed the appeal of the G 
appellants, converting their conviction u/s.304 IPC to 
conviction u/s. 304 (Part 2) IPC and reducing their 
sentence of 10 years RI to 3 years. 
I 
455 
H 
456 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants-accused inter 
B 
alia contended that they had inflicted the injuries, in 
exercise of right to private defence. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is the cardinal principle of law that 
everyone has a right to defend his own person and 
property but the right of private defence cannot be 
exercised for causing more harm than necessary or for 
taking revenge. Such right of private defence must be 
C used as a shield to avert an attack and it should not be 
vindictive and cannot be used to retaliate. In no case, the 
right of private defence extends to the inflicting of more 
harm than it is necessary to inflict, for the purpose of 
defence. [Para 1 O] [464-E-G] 
D 
2. On analysis of the evidence on record, it is clear 
that appellant No.1 (A-1) beat PW-1 (son of the deceased) 
on his right wrist with a stout stick with the result his 
hand broke. A-5 also beat him on the right side of the 
E neck with a stout stick. Then the deceased interfered. He 
tried to rescue his son. Then A-1 gave a blow on his head 
with stout stick and caused a bleeding injury. To rescue 
the deceased, PW-2 (wife of deceased) interfered; then 
A-1 and A-4 beat her with sticks on her hands and back 
and caused injuries. Though the deceased was already 
F beaten on his head, when his wife was being beaten by 
A-1 and A-4, he again mustered his strength and tried to 
interfere, when A-2 poked with a stick on his abdomen 
and A-3 beat him with a stick on his back and gave two 
blows. In fact the deceased in his statement before the 
G Police under Ex.P-20 said that A-2 did not simply poke 
in his abdomen by the side of his naval with a stick but 
in fact he pounded at his abdomen with the stick. In fact 
this was the injury that led to the death of the deceased 
because the intestines were ruptured and bleeding took 
H place internally and serious damage was caused to the 
THAMMU PANDURANGA RAO & ANR. v. STATE OF 457 
ANDHRA PRADESH 
vital organs inside and caused the death of the deceased. 
A 
[Para 11] [464-G-H; 465-A-D] 
3. The High Court has fully gone into the evidence 
of the witnesses examined and injuries sustained by the 
deceased and PW-2, and came to the conclusion that the 
B 
cumulative effect of the injuries led to the death of the 
deceased and appellant No.1 being the person, who 
participated in the commission of the offence, was also. 
having common intention to attack the deceased. 
However, the High Court in the facts and circumstances 
of the case modified the order of the conviction and C 
sentence. In view of the facts and circumstances of the 
case and the evidence available on record, there is no 
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of 
conviction and sentence passed by the High Court. 
[Paras 12 and 13] [465-0-G] 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CRIMINAL 
Appeal No. 1132 of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2007 of the 
E 
High Court of Judi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.