Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India decided two criminal appeals, one by the State of Punjab and the other by the wife of the deceased, against a common judgment of the High Court which had altered the conviction of the respondent Jaswant Singh from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC. The incident occurred on August 24, 1990, in a school at Talwandi Bhai where the deceased Harnek Singh and the respondent were teachers, and the principal Balkaran Singh (P.W.2) had convened a staff meeting to address a letter written by the respondent alleging misconduct. According to the prosecution, the respondent appeared uninvited at the meeting, and when the deceased objected, he fired three shots from his revolver, killing the deceased. The respondent claimed in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased attacked him with a hockey stick, and he fired in self-defence after first firing a warning shot. The trial court convicted the respondent under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment and three years respectively. On appeal, the High Court set aside those convictions and instead convicted the respondent under Section 304 Part I IPC, sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment, on the ground that he had a right of private defence but exceeded it by firing more than one shot. The State and the deceased's wife appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the High Court had erred in disturbing the trial court's findings. The High Court had relied on the injuries found on the respondent four days after the incident, namely abrasions and a contusion, to infer that he was assaulted with a hockey stick. However, the doctor who examined him stated that the injuries were simple and could be self-inflicted or self-suffered. The respondent had examined five defence witnesses, but none testified about the alleged assault or his right of private defence; they only attempted to show that he was not produced before court within 24 hours. The Supreme Court noted that the trial court had found even that evidence unsatisfactory, and the High Court did not advert to this aspect. The Court concluded that there was not an iota of material to remotely suggest that the respondent had a right of private defence of his person. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, and restored the trial court's convictions and sentences. It directed that if the respondent was out of jail, he should be re-arrested and remanded to serve the remainder of the sentence imposed by the trial court; if he was still in jail, he should continue to remain there.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Right of Private Defence - Murder and Culpable Homicide - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 304 Part I - The respondent was convicted by the trial court for murder under Section 302 IPC and under Section 27 Arms Act; the High Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC after accepting a plea of self-defence but finding that the respondent exceeded his right. The Supreme Court held that the respondent failed to establish any assault with a hockey stick, that the injuries found four days later were simple and could be self-inflicted, and that none of the five defence witnesses supported his plea. Held that there was not an iota of material to remotely suggest a right of private defence, and the trial court's conviction was restored (Paras 6-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court's conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act and convicting the respondent under Section 304 Part I IPC based on the plea of right of private defence.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. High Court judgment and order set aside; trial court's convictions and sentences restored. Respondent to be re-arrested if out of jail and serve remainder of sentence; if in jail continue.
Law Points
- Right of private defence must be established by credible evidence
- Simple injuries can be self-inflicted
- High Court cannot disturb trial court conviction without sufficient reason
- Absence of corroborative defence witnesses defeats self-defence plea
