Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: Punjab & Haryana 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