Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: 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