Judgment of the above noted case bearing Criminal Appeal No. 999 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 3018 of 2007 was delivered by the bench of Supreme Court of India comprising of Mr. Arijit Pasayat J. and Mr. P. Sathasivam J. on July 7, 2008.
The significant question of law involved in this case was whether mere a quarrel wherein accused persons sustain injuries may confer a right of private defence extending to the extent of causing death.
The court again observed that plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and speculation. While 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 must be examined with care and viewed in its proper setting. Section 97 IPC deals with the subject-matter of right of private defence. The plea of right comprises the body or property (i) of the person exercising the right; or (ii) of any other person; and the right may be exercised in the case of any offence against the body, or in case of offences in relation to property like theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, and attempts at such offences. The right given under Sections 96 to 98 and 100 to 106 IPC is controlled by Section 99. To claim a right of private defence extending to voluntary causing of death, the accused must show that there must be circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to him. The right commences, as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt, or threat; not necessarily commission of offence but not until there is that reasonable apprehension. The right lasts so long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body or property continues. Merely because there was a quarrel and accused persons claimed to have sustained injuries, that does not confer a right of private defence extending to the extent of causing death as in this case. Though such right cannot be weighed in golden scales, it has to be established that the accused persons were under such grave apprehension about the safety of their life and property that retaliation to the extent done was absolutely necessary.
In the case under consideration no evidence much less cogent and credible was adduced in this regard. Hence, the right of private defence as claimed by the accused has been discarded. It was noted that in the instant case the appellant had chopped both legs of the deceased in a brutal manner and with the weapon caused other injuries on the body of the deceased.
Under the circumstances, appeal was not allowed.
For getting complete judgment as pronounced by the court, please follow link below:
http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx?filename=31799
