Supreme Court of India
KASHI RAM & OTHERSversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 108
- Decided
- 28 January 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The accused were aggressors and exceeded the right of private defence; their convictions under Section 304 (Part II) IPC, Section 149 IPC and Section 323 IPC stand.
Summary
The dispute involved a 21‑bigha agricultural plot where the accused, claiming possession, went armed to retake the land from the complainant party who were unarmed and cultivating it. The accused attacked the complainants, causing serious injuries and the death of Balu Singh. They were convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 304 (Part II) IPC and, with Section 149 and 323 IPC, and the conviction was upheld by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the accused could invoke the right of private defence under Sections 96‑106 IPC. The Court held that the right of private defence is purely preventive, cannot be claimed by aggressors, and requires an imminent, real threat that cannot be averted by a counter‑attack; the accused were aggressors who proceeded armed to a definite destination and thus exceeded the right of private defence. Consequently, the convictions under Section 304 (Part II) and related sections were affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The accused claimed the right of private defence under Sections 96‑106 IPC; whether this right can be invoked when the accused are the aggressors and the victims are unarmed.
- Whether the use of lethal force by the accused was proportionate and within the limits of private defence.
- Whether the convictions under Section 304 (Part II) IPC, Section 149 IPC and Section 323 IPC should stand.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 100, s. 101, s. 103, s. 104, s. 106, s. 148, s. 149, s. 304(Part-II), s. 323, s. 96, s. 97, s. 99
Subjects
right of private defenceself‑defenceIndian Penal CodeSection 304 IPCSection 149 IPCland disputeaggressorexceeding private defencecriminal law
Judgment
+-
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 101
KASHI RAM & OTHERS A
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 732 of 2008)
JANUARY 28, 2008
8
.. [S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 96 to 106 - Right of private
defence - Exercise of - Accused proceeding to a definite
destination with lethal weapons and thereafter, causing fatal
injuries as well as serious injuries on unarmed complainant c
party - Courts below holding that accused exceeded the right
of private defence - Conviction of one accused uls 304 (Part
II) and others uls 304 (Part II) rlw s. 149 ands 323 - On appeal
held: Accused were aggressors and they attacked the
complainant party when they were totally unarmed - Thus, they D
did not have the right of private defence and could never claim
~ the same - Hence, order of courts· below with regard to
exceeding the right of private defence not sustainable and set
aside - ss. 304 (Part II), s. 149 & s 323.
According to the prosecution case, on the fateful day, E
the complainant party consisting of BS, PW 4- son of BS,
PW1 and PW 17 were cultivating the disputed land. On
learning about same, the accused persons along with
others, armed with weapons went to the field and attacked
....
the members of the complainant party and caused serious F
injuries to BS, PW 4 and PW 1. BS succumbed to his
injuries. PW 4 lodged an FIR. Accused pers9ns were
J apprehended and on their disclosure statements made
weapons were recovered. They were charged uls 302 r/w
)..- s. 149, 148 and 323 IPC. The accused-appellants denied G
all the incriminating evidence and pleaded that they were
in possession of the said land and the complainant party
wanted to dispossess them forcibly and in order to protect
their land, they inflicted some injuries to the complainant
101 H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
A party. The trial court accepted the prosecution case and
held that the accused persons were guilty of exceeding
their right of private defence of property It convicted
accused K u/s 304 (Part II) IPC for causing fatal injuries to
BS and four others u/s 304 (Part II) r/w s. 149 and also u/s
B 323 IPC for inflicted serious injuries to the complainant
party and sentenced all of them to 5 years rigorous
imprisonment. The High Court upheld the order. Hence
..
the present appeal.
Appellant-accused persons contended that their acts
C were fully covered by the right of self defence; and that
since they were in possession of the land in dispute, no
offence under section 304 (Part-II) IPC could be made out
against them.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
D
HELD: 1.1 The right of private defence cannot be
claimed when the accused are aggressors particularly
when the members of the complainant party were totally
unarmed. The right of private defence is purely preventive
E and not punitive. Private defence can be used only to ward
off unlawful force, to prevent unlawful force, to avoid
unlawful detention and to escape from such detention.
This right is available only to ward off the danger of being
attacked; the danger must be imminent and very real and
F it cannot be averted by a counter-attack. (Paras 33, 36 and
45) [117-E; 118-B; 122-A]
Bishna alias Bhiswasdeb Mahato and Ors. v. State of
West Bengal 2005 (12) ~CC 657 - relied on.
G 1.2 The right of private defence is a .very valuable
right and it has been recognized in all free, civilized and
democratic societies within certain reasonable limits.
(Para 39) [119-G]
Gottipulla Venkatasiva Subbrayanam and Ors. v. The
H State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. 1970 (1) SC~ 235-relied on.
i
'+
KASHI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 103
;
2.1 In the instant case, the appellants were in A
possession of the disputed land and the appellants had
gone to take back possession of the said land from the
members of the unarme·d complainant party. They inflicted
fatal blow on BS and other serious injuries on the
members of the complainant party. From perusal of the B
entire evidence on record, it is abundantly clear that the
accused appellants were the aggressor and they attacked
the complainant party when they were totally unarmed.
Even if the case of the accused appellants is accepted in
toto that in order to take back the possession of the c
disputed land some injuries were inflicted but the act of
the appellants in causing death cannot be covered by the
ambit of section 96 IPC. (Para 17, 24, 33 and 35) [111-C, D;
113-E, F]
2.2 Careful analysis of the right of private defence as D
I codified in sections 96 to 106 IPC and the legal position
---'~ ~ as crystallized by a number of judgments leads to an
-"I irresistible conclusion that the findings of the Sessions
~ Court as upheld by the High Court regarding the
appellants' exceeding the right of private defence are E
~ wholly erroneous and untenable. In view of the facts of
(
this case, the accused appellants did not have the right
of private defence. Therefore, they cannot legitimately
claim any benefit by invoking the principle of right of
~ ... private defence. The acts of the accused appellants of F
___.... proceeding to a definite destination with lethal weapons
and thereafter causing serious injuries including fatal
injuries on the unarmed members of the complainant party
can never legitimately claim the benefit of the provisions
..
--., ~
of the right of private defence. Since the accused
appellants did not have the right of private defence,
therefore, the findings of the courts below regarding their
exceeding the right of private defence cannot be
G
sustained and are set aside. (Paras 44, 46 and 47) [121-G, H;
(
122-8, C, D]
Iii H
(
-+ [ '
·'
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 2 S.C.R.
..
A 2.6 On consideration of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case the conviction and sentence
of the accused appellants as recorded by the courts
below does not warrant any interference. (Para 50) [122-F]
Bishna alias Bhiswasdeb Mahato and Ors. v. State of
B West Bengal (2005) 12 SCC 657; The Munney Khan v. State
of Madhya Pradesh 1970 (2) SCC 480; Balmukund and.Anr.
..,
v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1981 (4) SCC 432; Dharam Pal
and Ors. v. State of UP 1994 Supp (3) SCC 668; Mahabir
Choudhary v. State of Bihar 1996 (5) SCC 107; Preetam Singh
c v. State of Rajasthan 2003 (12) SCC 594; Mohammad Khan ,,
and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1971 (3) SCC 683 -
relied on.
~
Queen v. Fuzza Meeah alias Fuzza Mahomed 1866 (6)
WR (Cr) 89; Queen v. Shunker Sing, Kukhoor Sing 1864 (1)
D
WR (Cr) 34; Browne 1973 NI 96 - Jieferred to.
Criminal Law by J.C. Smith & Brian Hogan; Crimes by ~
Russel 11th Edn. p.491; Blackstone Commentaries Book lo.
~
4; P. 185; Halsbury's Laws of England Fourth Edn, Vol.11
E pp. 630-631 - referred to.
CRIMINALAPPEALLTE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 732 of 2002.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 4.2.2002 of the
F High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Crl. A.
No. 826/2001
Dr. Sushil Balwada for the Appellants.
Naveen Kumar Singh, Shashwat Gupta and Aruneshwar
G Gupta for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :
. ·-.
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. This appeal is directed
against the judgment dated 04.02.2002 in Criminal Appeal
H No.826 of 2001 passed by the High Court of judicature for
+ KASHI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 105
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
,.. A
Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
Brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this appeal
are recapitulated as under:-
The land measuring 21 bighas is located in village Bhinan,
Tehsil Taranagar and the ownership of the same was recorded B
in the name of Smt. Chhoti Devi w/o Budh Singh Rajput and
after her demise, the land was transferred in the name of Balu
Singh.
The accused, Nanuram submitted an application before
the Tehsildar, Taranagar and disclosed that he had bought the c
said land on the basis of agreement to sell from Smt. Chhoti
Devi at a consideration of Rs.1200/- and he is in possession of
the land and is cultivating the same. It was alleged that the
transfer in the name of Balu Singh had been wrongly recorded
in the revenue records. The Tehsildar, after some enquiry D
cancelled the entry of transfer recorded in the name of Balu
Singh.
On 13th June, 1999 at about 10 a.m., the complainant party
consisting of Amar Singh PW4, his father Balu Singh (since
deceased), Bahadur Singh PW8, Nanuram Nai PW1 and Prithvi E
Singh PW17 went to cultivate Khasra No.512 situated in village
Bhinan Tehsil, Taranagar District Churu. At that time, the accused
persons were not there but on learning about the presence of
the complainant party in Khasra No. 512 around 12 noon on the
same day, the accused party consisting of Nanuram accused- F
appellant along with the acquitted 6 persons came from the side
of village, armed with gandasa, lathis and axes and attacked
the members of the complainant party and caused serious
injuries to Amar Singh PW4, Nanuram Nai PW1 and Balu Singh.
Balu Singh succumbed to those injuries in the hospital on the G
same day at 6 p.m.
'...-
Amar Singh PW4 lodged the first information report. The
accused persons were apprehended and on their voluntary
disclosure statements, lathis, gandasa and axes were
' ·.. H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 2 S.C.R. +
""'
A recovered and after usual examination, they were charged under
section 302 read with sections 149, 148 and 323 IPC. The
accused-appellants in their statements under section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure denied all the incriminating
evidence and pleaded that they were in possession of the
B agricultural land and the complainant party wanted to dispossess
them forcibly. In the process of protecting the possession of their ~
land, a scuffle between the parties took place. Amar Singh PW4
'1
and Balu Singh from the side of the complainant party received
injuries and Gopiram from the side of accused appellants also
c received injuries.
According to the members of the complainant party, they
were totally unarmed at the time of the incident and the accused
persons who were armed with lathis, gandasa and axes had
inflicted serious injuries on them. The injuries on the person of
D Balu Singh were medically examined. The doctor found the
following external injuries:
(1) lacerated wound - 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on
vertex of skull, ""'
E (2) lacerated wound - 5 cm x bone deep in the right
frontal prominence region,
(3) lacerated wound - 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on
occipital region of head and
F (4) four abrasions on right middle leg, left knee and
posterior region of left leg. -.;..
All the aforesaid injuries were found to have been caused
with blunt weapon and x-ray was advised in respect of three
lacerated wounds.
G
On the post-mortem of Balu Singh's body, it was revealed
--'.
that apart from abrasions, three lacerated wounds, haematoma
was present and the fracture of bone was detected. The brain
was squeezed. In the opinion of doctor, cause of death of Balu
Singh was shock due to aforesaid three lacerated injuries on
H
KASHI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 107
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
his person. ,A
On the head of Amar Singh four lacerated wounds on left
parietal region, middle of forehead, right leg and two other
lacerated wounds and middle region of left leg were found by
the doctor. According to the doctor, these injuries were caused
8
by a blunt weapon.
On Nanuram, lacerated wound on occipital region of head,
upper left near ear region respectively and contusion on left
'\ shoulder were found. All the above three injuries were caused
by a blunt weapon. Gandasa, lathis and other weapons of. c,
offence were recovered at the instance of the accused
appellants. Blood-stained clothes of the deceased Balu Singh
were seized by the police and clothes, earth etc. were sent to
Forensic Laboratory for examination. In the serological
examination human blood was detected in the blood-stained
D
earth and on the deceased's shirt, dhoti and baniyan, however,
no blood was found on the weapons recovered by the police. In
the formal investigation of the case, no case was made out
against Sri Chand, Dula Ram, Lilu Ram and Pappu and charge-
sheet against the remaining 11 accused persons was filed in
the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar. On E
committal, the case was sent to the Court of Sessions.
The prosecution, in order to support and strengthen its case
has examined 25 witnesses and placed relianc.e on 78
documents on record. The statements of the accused persons F
were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused
denied the prosecution version and claimed themselves
innocent and asserted that a false case has been. made out
against them. It was asserted by the appellants that Nanuram
and Kashiram bought the disputed land from Smt. Chhoti Devi G
through agreement to sell dated 23.4.1965 and s.ince then
Nanuram has been in possession and was paying land revenue.
It was further submitted that on 13.9.1999, on the basis of the
information received that Balu Singh and his sons along with
other 15-20 persons went to their field (Khasra No. 512) on a , H
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 2 S.C.R. -+-
A tractor with the intention to take forcible possession of the field
by cultivating it. About 100-150 people of village Bhinan went to
stop them from doing so. They were armed with variety of
weapons. They inflicted serious injuries on Amar Singh and Balu
Singh.
B The defence has produced DW1 Dr. Haleef, DW2
Mahender Singh and DW3 Nanuram. In the documentary
evidence, extracts of statements of witnesses Nanuram, Mohan
Kunwar, Amar Singh, Bhawan Singh, Moti Ram Patwari,
I
•
Bhanwar Singh and written report by Dr. Mahesh Panwar to the
c SHO Police Station Taranagar, letter of SHO and injury report
of Gopiram and copies of traced out site plans have been
produced.
The prosecution mainly relied on PW2 Lal Chand, PW5
Het Ram, PW6 Lilu Ram, PW? Moman Ram, PW12 Guiab
D
Singh, PW13 Moti Ram, PW14 Manohar Lal and PW23 Pala
Ram, investigating officer.
According to the investigating officer, the accused-
appellants were in possession of the field where the occurrence
E took place. The complainant party went to this field with the
intention to take its possession. The members of the
complainant party were asked not to ply the tractor on the field.
Despite the resistance the field was cultivated by the
--·
complainant party. On learning that the complainant party was
F cultivating Khasra No.512, the accused appellants in a group
of 15-20 people fully armed with different weapons, reached
the said Khasra and attacked the complainant party. The case
.of the appellants as culled out from evidence is that the accused
appellants were compelled to use force in order to protect the
lives and property and their case is fully covered by the right of
G
private defence. In this view of the matter, presence of the
accused appellants cannot be doubted. -.(
•
The entire evidence on record had been scrutinized in detail :
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On evaluation of the
H entire evidence it has been fully established by the learned
--+
KASHI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 109
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
"'"
Additional Sessions Judge that the fatal injuries were inflicted A
by Kashiram and other serious injuries were caused by Dharam
Pal, Jagdish and Rupa Ram on the persons of Balu Singh and
Amar Singh in furtherance of their common object of killing the
members of the complainant party.
B
The trial court acquitted six accused and convicted five
y
accused appellants.
;
From the analysis of the evidence by the trial court, it is
abundantly clear that the accused appellants were in possession
of Khasra No. 512. The complainant party had gone to cultivate c
the said Khasra at 1Oa.m. on 13th June, 1999. At that time, the
(
accused appellants were not there but on learning that the
" complainant party was cultivating the field, they reached there
armed with varieties of weapons and caused serious injuries
on the members of the complainant party. Admittedly, the
D
members of the complainant party were totally unarmed. The
appellants were responsible for causing fatal injury on Balu
Singh and other serious injuries on Amar Singh and Nanuram.
According to the findings of the Sessions Court, the accused
appellant~ had exceeded the right of private defence.
E
Kashiram was convicted under Section 304 Part-II and was
J sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. Other 4 accused,
namely, Dharam Pal, Jagdish, Rupa Ram and Om Prakash
inflicted injuries on Amar Singh and Nanuram were convicted
under Section 304 Part-II read with section 149 IPC and they F
were also sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. They
were also convicted under section 323 IPC.
The High Court again examined the entire evidence and
came to a clear conclusion that the accused appellants had
exceeded in their right of private defence. They caused serious G
_,,..
injuries to Balu Singh which proved fatal. They also caused
serious injuries to Amar Singh and Nanuram. Injuries of such
serious nature were totally unwarranted because the members
of the complainant party were totally unarmed.
,. ~-.
H
+-
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
A '"~The finding of the High Court regarding accused appellants'
private defence reads as under:-
.. "Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly held that the
accused persons have exceeded their right of private
defence of property."
B
The High Court also came to the conclusion that in the
facts and circumstances the trial court has correctly evaluated
the entire evidence on record and has taken a very lenient view.
The· High Court did not find any mitigating circumstance to "
c interfere with the quantum of sentence.
I· .
Th.e,appell~nts aggrieved by the said judgment of the High '
~-
Court.:have preferred this appeal before this court.
lt·was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
_ ap.pellants ·that the High Court failed to appreciate that the
0
disputed land was in possession of the accused persons and
the complainant party came to their field to dispossess them
and'their acts, if any, are fully covered by the right of self defence.
It is also submitted that the appellants had filed a suit against
E :· the complainant party prior to this incident and an injunction was
granted against the complainant party by the Revenue Court on
10.5.1999 and it was found that the accused appellants were in
possession of the disputed land.
The appellants also submitted that it is a case of over
F implication because of previous enmity. According to the
appellant$, since they were in possession of the land in dispute,
therefore, no offence under section 304 Part-11 IPC can be made
out against .them.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
G the State. We have also perused the judgment of the trial court
and th~ 'record of the case. The Sessions Court and the High
Court·found that the appellantswere in possession of Khasra
No.512 and the complainant party at about 10 a.m. on 13th June,
1999 went to cultivate Khasra No.512. The appellants were not
H ·there. The appellants learnt that the members of the complainant
.,
---+-
KASH! RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 111
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
..._
party were cultivating the said field, the accused appellants A
armed with gandasa, lathis and axes came to the field and
assaulted the members of the complainant party when they were
unarmed. Appellant Kashiram inflicted gandasa blow on Balu
Singh from the reverse side and that injury proved fatal. The
gandasa has been recovered at the instance of Kashiram. B
According to the report of the Chemical Examiner, human blood
was detected from the blood-stained clothes of the deceased.
The earth collected from the spot also contained human blood.
., Since the appellant Kashiram did not use the front side of
gandasa, therefore, the trial court instead of convicting him under 0
section 302 IPC convicted him under section 304 Part-II IPC. In
view of our finding that the appellants were in possession of
Khasra No.512 and the appellants had gone to take back
possession of Khasra No.512 from the members of the
complainant party, had inflicted fatal blow on Babu Singh and
D
other serious injuries on the members of the complainant party.
The question which arises for our adjudication is that in
the facts and circumstances of this case whether the accused
appellants are protected by the right of private defence as
enumerated by section 96 of the Indian Penal Code. E
Sections 96 to 106 deal with various facets of the right of
private defence. Before determining the controversy in this case,
we deem it proper to deal with these provisions in brief.
Section 96 IPC reads as under: F
"96. Things done in private defence.- Nothing is
an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of
private defence."
Section 97 of IPC gives right to a person to defend his
G
body and the property. But, this right is subject to restrictions
; >-
contained in section 99. Section 99 IPC reads as under:-
"99. Acts against which there is no right of private
defence. - There is no right of private defence against an
act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of H
+-,
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
A death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done,
by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his
office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law.
There is no right of private defence against an act which
does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or
8 of grievous hurt, if done or attempted to be done, by the
direction of a public servant acting in good faith under ~·.
colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly
justifiable by law.
r-
There is no right of private defence in cases in which there
c is time to have recourse to the protection of the public
authorities.
Extent to which the right may be exercised. - The
right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting
D of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose
of defence."
The main question that arises for adjudication in this case
is whether the accused appellants had right of private defence
and this is the case of exceeding the right of private defence
E meaning thereby, inflicting more harm than it was necessary for
the purpose of defence.
Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code deals with a situation
when the right of private defence of the body extends of causing
death. The relevant portion of the section reads as under:-
F
"100 - When the right of private defence of the body
extends to causing death. - The right of private defence
of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in
the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death
G or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which
occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the -(
descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:-
First. - Such an assault as may reasonably cause the
apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence
H of such assault;
-+
KASH! RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 113
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
Secondly - Such an assault as may reasonably cause A
the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the
consequence of such assault;
Thirdly - xxx xxx xxx
Forthly - xxx xxx xxx B
Fifthly - xxx xxx xxx
Sixthly - xxx xxx xx.X'
Section 103 IPC deals with a situation when the right of
private defence of property extends to causing death. Section C
103 IPC reads as under:-
"103. When the right of private defence of property
extends to causing death. - The right of private defence
of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in 0
section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any
other harm to the wrong-doer, if the offence, the committing
of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions
the exercise of the right, be an offence of any of the
descriptions hereinafter enumerated, ........... "
E
Admittedly, the members of the complainant party were
totally unarmed. Even if the case of the accused appellants is
accepted in toto that in order to take back the possession of
Khasra No.512 some injuries were inflicted but the act of the
appellants in causing death cannot be covered by the ambit of F
section 96 IPC. According to the findings of courts below, it was
clearly a case of exceeding the right of private defence. The
appellants indeed inflicted more harm than it was necessary for
the purpose of defence.
The right of private defence is codified in sections 97 to G
~ >- 106 of the Indian Penal Code and all these sections will have to
be read together to ascertain whether in the facts and
circumstances the accused appellants are entitled to right of
private defence or they exceeded the right of private defence.
Only when all these sections are read together, we get H
+,
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
A comprehensive view of the scope and limitation of that right.
The position of law is well-settled for over a century both in
England and India.
Almost 150 years ago in Queen v. Fuzza Meeah alias
Fuzza Mahomed (1866) 6 WR (Cr) 89 because of exceeding
B the right of private defence, the appellants were convicted, but
the sentence of imprisonment was reduced.
-f
In another case decided during the same period in Queen
v. Shunker Sing, Kukhoor Sing (1864) 1 WR (Cr) 34, the
c court for exceeding the right of private defence convicted the
accused and reduced the sentence.
•·
This court also on several occasions dealt with the cases
of exceeding the right of private defence. In The Munney Khan
v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1970) 2 SCC 480, this court for
D exceeding the right of private defence converted the sentence
of the accused appellant from under section 302 IPC to section
304 IPC. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-
"Such a right of private defence is governed by Section
101, l.P.C. and is subject to two limitations. One is that, in
E
exercise of this right of private defence, any kind of hurt
can be caused, but not death; and the other is that the use
of force does not exceed the minimum required to save
the person in whose defence the force is used. In these
circumstances, in the present case, when Zulfiquar was
F being given fist blows only, there could be no justification
at all for the appellant to stab Reotisingh with a knife and
particularly to give him a blow which could prove fatal by
aiming it on his back. The use of the knife itself was in
excess of the right of P,rivate defence and it became much
G more excessive when the blow with the knife was given on
a vital part of the body which, in the ordinary course of -...( ....
nature, was likely to cause the death of Reotisingh. From
the fact that the blow was given in the back with a knife an
inference follows that the appellant intended to cause death
H or at least intended to cause such injury as would, in the
·+
KASHI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 115
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
ordinary course of nature, result in his death. In adopting A
this course, the appellant would have been clearly guilty of
the offence of murder had there been no right of private
defence of Zulfiquar at all. Since such a right did exist, the
case would fall under the exception under which culpable
homicide does not amount to murder on the ground that B
the death was caused in exercise of right of private
defence, but by exceeding that right. An offence of this
nature is made punishable under the first part of Section
304, I.PC. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant
must be under that provision and not under Section 302 c
l.P.C.
As a result, the appeal is partly allowed, the conviction
under Section 302, l.P.C. is set aside, and the appellant
is convicted instead under the first part of Section 304,
l.P.C. In view of the change in the offence for which the D
appellant is being punished, we set aside the sentence of
~
imprisonment for life, and instead, award him a sentence
of seven years' rigorous imprisonment."
In Balmukund & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(1981) 4 sec 432 this court while dealing with the facts of similar E
nature converted the conviction from section 302 IPC to section
304 IPC. Relevant observations of the court reads as under:-
"In rural landscape even today dispute as to possession
of agricultural land is a part of life. Occupancy of land F
being the only source of survival, emotional attachment
apart, the struggle for survival leads to fierce fight and
resort to arms to protect possession because in the context
of tardy slow moving litigative process actual possession
has ceased to be mere nine point in law but it has assumed
G
>- alarming proportions. Years upon years spent in legal
conundrums moving vertically through hierarchy of courts
coupled with the cost and time to throw out a trespasser
... or even a rank trespasser provides occasionally
provocation to resort to physical violence. The use of the
H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
A firearm used to be spasmodic but it has started becoming
a recurring malady. But right of private defence cannot be
judged step by step or in golden scales. Once we accept
the finding of the High Court that the appellants had the
right of private defence of person and property meaning
B thereby that the appellants were the victims and the
complainants were aggressor.s, but in the facts of the case
they exceeded the same by wielding a firearm, a sentence '-f
of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment would appear to us in
the facts and circumstances of the case to be a little bit
c too harsh.
Having given our earnest consideration to the question of
sentence alone in this case, we are of the opinion that
Balmukund, Appellant 1, should be sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for five years, and simultaneously the sentence
D of seven years under Section 307, Indian Penal Code awarded
to Appellants 1 and 2 both be reduced to three years each. The
substantive sentences should run concurrently."
In another case, while dealing with a case of self defence
. in Dharam Pal & Others v. State of U.P. 1994 Supp (3) sec
E 668, this court for exceeding the right of private defence instead
of convicting the accused appellant under section 302 read with
section 149 IPC, converted the sentence under section 304 Part-
1 IPC.'
F In Mahabir Choudhary v. State of Bihar (1996) 5 sec
107, this court held that the High Court erred in holding that the
appellants had no right of private defence at any stage. However,
this court upheld the judgment of the Sessions Court holding
that since the appellants had right of private defence to protect
G their property, but in the circumstances of the case, the
appellants had exceeded their right of private defence and were, -<
therefore, rightly convicted by the trial court under section 304
Part-I. The court observed that the right of private defence cannot
be used to kill the wrongdoer unless the person concerned has
a reasonable cause to fear that otherwise death or grievous
H
·+ KASHI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 117
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
hurt might ensue in which case that person would have full A
measure of right of private defence including killing.
We have examined the cases of exceeding of the right of
private defence. In the instant case, both the Sessions Court
and the High Court came to the conclusion that the accused
B
appellants were guilty of exceeding the right of private defence
and instead of convicting them under section 302 convicted them
.,..., under section 304 Part-II along with 149 IPC .
Both the Sessions Court and the High Court clearly came
to the conclusion that the accused appellants in a group of 15- c
20 people armed with variety of weapons had gone to Khasra
No.512 where the complainant party was cultivating. The
accused appellants in order to dispossess the members of the
complainant party attacked them and caused serious injuries
to the members of the complainant party in which Balu Singh
D
died. Admittedly, the members of the complainant party were
totally unarmed. From perusal of the entire evidence on record,
it is abundantly clear that the accused appellants were the
:I· aggressor and they attacked the co.mplainant party when they
were totally unarmed. It is settled legal position that the right of
private defence cannot be claimed when the accused are E
aggressors particularly when the members of the complainant
party were totally unarmed. This Court in the recent judgment in
Bishna alias Bhiswasdeb Mahato & Others v. State of West
Bengal (2005) 12 SCC 657 exhaustively dealt with this aspect
of the matter. The facts of this case are akin to the facts of the F
instant cases. In this case, the Court while relying on the earlier
judgments of this Court, clearly came to the conclusion that the
right of private defence cannot be claimed when the accused is
an aggressor.
G
In the said case, this Court relied on Preetam Singh v.
>- State of Rajasthan (2003) 12 SCC 594. In this case, the Court
clearly held that the appellants were the aggressors, therefore,
the question of the appellants having the right of private defence
or exceeding it does not arise. The plea of private defence is
H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R
1 .
A not at all available to the appellants.
In the instant case, the appellants were the aggressor. They
inflicted serious injuries on the unarmed complainant party by a
variety of weapons causing the death of Balu Singh and also
inflicted serious injuries on other members of the complainant
B party.
Private defence can be used only to ward off unlawful force,
to prevent unlawful force, to avoid unlawful detention and to 'f
escape from such detention as held by this court in Bishna's
c case (supra). In the said judgment the relevant portion of Kenny's
Outlines of Criminal Law and Criminal Law by J.C. Smith and
Brian Hogan have been quoted. We deem it appropriate to
reproduce the same.
"It is natural that a man who is attacked should resist, and
D his resistance, as such, will not be unlawful. It is not
necessary that he should wait to be actually struck, before
striking in self-defence. If one party raises up a threatening
hand, then the other may strike. Nor is the right of defence ~
limited to the particular person assailed; it includes all
E who are under any obligation, even though merely social
and not legal, to protect him. The old authorities exemplify
this by the cases of a husband defending his wife, a child
his parent, a master his servant, or a servant his master
(and perhaps the courts would now take a still more general
F view of this duty of the strong to protect the weak)."
The learned author further stated that self-defence, however, --.
is not extended to unlawful force:
"But the justification covers only blows struck in sheer self-
defence and not in revenge. Accordingly if, when all the
G
danger is over and no more blows are really needed for
defence, the defender nevertheless strikes one, he -...( ,
commits an assault and battery. The numerous decisions
that have been given as to the kind of weapons that may
lawfully be used to repel an assailant, are merely
H
.,
'
·-+- KASH! RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 119
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
+
applications of this simple principle. Thus, as we have A
already seen, where a person is attacked in such a way
that his life is in danger he is justified in even killing his
assailant to prevent the felony. But an ordinary assault
must not be thus met by the use of firearms or other deadly
weapons ...... " B
In Browne 1973 NI 96 (NI at p. 107] Lowry, L.C.J. with
regard to self-defence stated:
---- "The need to act must not have been created by conduct
of the accused in the immediate context of the incident c
which was likely or intended to give rise to that need."
As regards self-defence and prevention of crime in
. Criminal Law by J.C. Smith & Brian Hogan, it is stated:
"Since self-defence may afford a defence to murder,
D
obviously it may do so to lesser offences against the
person and subject to similar conditions. The matter is
now regulated by Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act, 1967.
An attack which would not justify Din killing might justify
him in the use of some less degree of force, and so afford
E
a defence to a charge of wounding, or, a fortiori, common
assault. But the use of greater force than is reasonable to
repel the attack will result in liability to conviction for
common assault, or whatever offence the degree of harm
caused and intended warrants. Reasonable force may be
used in defence of property so that D was not guilty of an F
--..:
assault when he struck a bailiff who was unlawfully using
force to enter D 's home. Similar principles apply to force
used in the prevention of crime."
The right of private defence is a very valuable right and it
G
has been recognized in all free, civilized and democratic
societies within certain reasonable limits (see Gottipul/a
Venkatasiva Subbrayanam & Others v. The State ofAndhra
Pradesh & Another (1970) 1 SCC 235.
Russel in his celebrated book on Crimes (11 1h Edn.) p.491 H
~
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008} 2 S.C.R.-+-··
.....
A has stated:-
"A man is justified in resisting by force any one who
manifestly intends and endeavours by violence or surprise
to commit a known felony against his person, habitation
or property. In these cases he is not obliged to retreat and
8 not merely to resist the attack where he stands but may
indeed pursue his adversary until the danger is ended. If
and in a conflict between them he happens to kill his '"f
attacker such killing is justifiable."
...
c Blackstone [Commentaries Book 4; P. 185] also observed
as under:-
"The party assaulted must, therefore, flee as far as he
conveniently can either by reason of some wall, ditch, or ...
some other impediment; or as far as the fierceness of the
"
D assault will permit him; for it may be so fierce as not to
yield a step, without manifest danger of his life, or
enormous bodily harm; and then in his defence he may kill
his assailant instantaneously. And this is the doctrine of Y.
universal justice, as well as of the municipal law."
E (Emphasis supplied).
Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol.11 pp. 630-
631 dealt with self-defence and defence of property. The relevant
portion in paras 1180-1181 reads as under:-
F "1180. Self-defence. A person acting in self-defence is
normally acting to prevent the commission of a crime, as ,...
is a person acting in defence of another. The test to be ,..
~
applied in such cases is now established to be the same
as for cases of prevention of crime, that is the force used
in self-defence or in defence of another must be reasonable
G
in the circumstances
.....(_
Provided the force used is reasonable a person is entitled
to defence not only himself or a member of his family, but
even a complete stranger if the stranger is subject to
H unlawful attack by others.
_,,__ __
KASHI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 121
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
In deciding whether the force used was reasonable, all the A
circumstances may be considered. The matter is one of
fact and not one of law, hence it cannot be ruled that a
person who is attacked must retreat before retaliating. A
person's opportunity to retreat with safety is a factor to be
taken into account in deciding whether his conduct was B
reasonable, as is his willingness to temporize or disengage
himself before resorting to force. A man is not obliged to
refrain from going where he may lawfully go because "he
has reason to believe that he may be attacked, and is not
thereby deprived of his right of self-defence.
c
1181. Defence of property. Where a person in defending
his property is also acting in the prevention of crime then
he may use such force as is reasonable in the
circumstances. Where no crime is involved, as where there
is merely a trespass, the same rule of reasonable force in D
the circumstances is applicable. If in using reasonable
force the defendant should accidentally kill another, the
')I
killing would not amount to murder or man-slaughter. It
would not, in general, be reasonable to kill in defence of
property alone, although it has been held that a man may
E
lawfully kill, a trespasser who would forcibly dispossess
him of his house."
In Mohammad Khan & Others v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (1971) 3 SCC 683 in para 11, this court has rightly
concluded that the right of self-defence only arises if the F
apprehension is unexpected and one is taken unawares. If one
enters into an inevitable danger with the fullest intimation
beforehand and goes there armed to fight out, the right cannot
be claimed.
Careful analysis of the right of private defence as codified G
in sections 96 to 106 IPC and the legal position as crystallized
.>-
by a number of judgments leads to an irresistible conclusion
that the findings of the Sessions Court as upheld by the High
Court in the instant case regarding the appellants' exceeding
the right of private defence are wholly erroneous and untenable. H
-~-
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 2 S.C.R.
A The right of private defence is purely preventive and not
punitive. This right is available only to ward off the danger of
being attacked; the danger must be imminent and very real and
it cannot be averted by a counter-attack.
In view of the facts of this case, the accused appellants
B did not have the right of private defence. Therefore, they cannot
legitimately claim any benefit by invoking the principle of right
of p.rivate defence.
The acts of the accused appellants fully armed with variety
c of weapons and proceed to a definite destination and thereafter
causing serious injuries including fatal injuries on the unarmed
members of the complainant party can never legitimately claim
the benefit of the provisions of the right of private defence. Since
the accused appellants did not have the right of private defence,
therefore, the findings of the courts below regarding their
D
exceeding the right of private defence cannot be sustained and
are accordingly set aside.
Since there is no appeal by the State against acquittal of 'Y.
the accused appellants under sections 302 IPC, therefore it is
E not necessary for us to deal with the aspect whether their acquittal
under section 302 was justified or not.
The Sessions Court convicted accused Kashiram under
section 304 Part-II and the other appellants under section 304
Part-I I read with section 149 IPC. In the impugned judgment the
F High Court has upheld their conviction.
On consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case the conviction and sentence of the accused
appellants as recorded by the courts below do not warrant any
G interference. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly
dismissed.
--'..
The accused appellants are directed to surrender forthwith
to suffer the remaining sentence.
N.J. Appeal dismissed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "right of private defence"Sign in to search