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 Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

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