Individuals Have The Right To Defend Themselves, The Force Used Must Not Be Disproportionate To The Threat Faced: Allahabad High Court Convicted For Culpable Homicide
Allahabad, May 24, 2024 — The Allahabad High Court has overturned a 1983 trial court judgment, convicting three respondents, Ram Shiromani, Ram Lagan, and Ram Janak, under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case, State vs. Nanda and Others, revolved around allegations of murder and assault, with the central issue being the extent to which the accused could claim the right of private defense.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to July 8, 1981, when a violent altercation erupted in the village of Madhupur, Jaunpur. The dispute allegedly started over the blocking of a drain (nabdan) by the accused, leading to a confrontation with the deceased, Nand Lal and Jagannath. The initial trial court acquitted the accused on May 16, 1983, citing failure of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Key Points of the Judgment
Private Defense Analysis: The High Court meticulously analyzed the right of private defense under Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC. It acknowledged that while individuals have the right to defend themselves, the force used must not be disproportionate to the threat faced. The Court found that the respondents had exceeded their right of private defense.
Evidence and Injuries: The prosecution presented substantial evidence, including testimonies from eyewitnesses and medical reports. Dr. B.K. Singh, who examined the injured parties, confirmed the nature and extent of injuries, which were consistent with the assault claims. The post-mortem reports of the deceased, conducted by Dr. A.K. Sarin, corroborated the accounts of fatal injuries inflicted by the accused.
Legal Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the accused need to prove their right to private defense by a preponderance of probabilities. While the defense argued that the deceased were the aggressors, the High Court noted that the force used by the accused was excessive given the situation.
Exceptions to Murder: Applying the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC, the Court concluded that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment without premeditation during a sudden quarrel. Thus, the charges were converted from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Court Observations and Analysis
The Bench, comprising Justices Rajiv Gupta and Shiv Shanker Prasad, observed that the injuries inflicted on both sides indicated a violent altercation. The accused’s claim of private defense was scrutinized, and it was found that while defending themselves, they had indeed exceeded their legal right.
The Court highlighted several precedents, including Jai Deo v. State of Punjab (1963 Cr.L.J. 493) and Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (2010) 2 SCC 333, reinforcing the principles that guide the right of private defense. The decision reflected a balanced approach, acknowledging the right to self-defense while condemning the excessive use of force.
Conclusion The High Court’s decision to convict Ram Shiromani, Ram Lagan, and Ram Janak under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentence them to six years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each is a significant ruling. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in carefully balancing the right to private defense with the need to prevent misuse of this right.
Date of Decision: May 24, 2024
State vs. Nanda and Others
