Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme 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