CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Complainant Found to be Aggressors Converts Conviction to Culpable Homicide: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has converted the conviction of Jasbir Singh, the appellant, from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court observed that the complainant party was found to be the aggressors in the case. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath.

The appellant, along with five other accused, was convicted by the Sessions Judge under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, upholding his conviction while acquitting the other accused.

The Supreme Court, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances, held that the conviction under Section 302 IPC was not sustainable. It relied on the defense version presented by the appellant, wherein he claimed self-defense. The court noted that the appellant and his companions were attacked by the complainant party, and the appellant fired in self-defense. The High Court also found the defense version to be more probable and established that the complainant party were the aggressors.

"The defence version is more probable where Jasbir Singh appellant has stated that it was the complainant party who attacked him and his companions and he fired in self-defense. Appellants have explained their conduct, that everything was done in self-defense. It has been admitted by both the witnesses Sohan Singh PW-10 and Jaswant Singh PW-11 that the land was in possession of the appellants and they are the ones who had sown the crop. Complainant, in fact, are the aggressors," observed the High Court in its judgment.

The Supreme Court further emphasized that the response of a person faced with aggression from a large group armed with lathies (sticks) may differ, and it cannot be assumed that the appellant would not use firearms in self-defense. Accordingly, the court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 2 of Section 300 IPC, which pertains to the right to private defense.

Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the appellant's conviction from Section 302 IPC to Part I of Section 304 IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However, the conviction under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) was upheld.

Taking into account the period of approximately five years already served by the appellant, the court deemed it sufficient punishment for the offenses under Section 304 Part I IPC and Section 307 IPC. Therefore, the appellant was sentenced to the period of incarceration already undergone.

The judgment brings clarity to the case and highlights the importance of considering the right to self-defense in situations where the accused faces aggression from a group. The court's observations regarding the aggressor party have far-reaching implications for cases involving similar circumstances.

 

Date of Decision: January 19, 2023

JASBIR SINGH  VS THE STATE OF PUNJAB   

Latest Legal News