Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sampat Singh, was tried for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but was convicted under Section 304 Part II. The trial court and the Rajasthan High Court found that the appellant had exceeded his right of self-defence. They did not fully believe the prosecution version but accepted part of the appellant's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in which he claimed self-defence. The courts held that while he had the right to defend himself, he used excessive force. In his appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that his statement under Section 342 CrPC, which did not amount to a confession, should be considered in its entirety and could not be used in part to convict him. He relied on the decision in Narain Singh v. State of Punjab. The respondent, the State of Rajasthan, supported the concurrent findings of the courts below. The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence, held that neither the trial court nor the High Court had relied solely on the appellant's statement to convict him; there was sufficient other evidence establishing that the right of private defence was exceeded. The court distinguished Narain Singh's case, noting that the rule that a conviction cannot be based solely on an accused's non-confessional statement was not attracted when other evidence existed. Instead, it followed the principle in Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar, which allowed reliance on a portion of the statement in conjunction with other evidence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Examination of Accused - Statement under Section 342 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 342 - The court examined whether the lower courts could rely on part of the appellant's statement under Section 342 CrPC to convict him for exceeding the right of self-defence. The Supreme Court held that it is permissible to rely on a portion of the accused's statement and find him guilty in consideration of other evidence led by the prosecution. The rule in Narain Singh's case was distinguished, and the principle in Nishi Kant Jha was applied. Held that the conviction was justified as there was sufficient other evidence. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below could rely on a part of the appellant's statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for the purpose of convicting him, when the statement did not amount to a confession, and whether the rule in Narain Singh's case (requiring the whole statement to be considered) was applicable.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the courts below were justified in concluding that the appellant exceeded his right of self-defence. It was permissible for the courts to rely on a portion of the accused's statement under Section 342 CrPC and find him guilty in consideration of other prosecution evidence. The rule in Narain Singh's case was not attracted, and the principle in Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar was applied.
Law Points
- Permissibility to rely on a portion of an accused's non-confessional statement under Section 342 CrPC when considered with other prosecution evidence
- Conviction cannot be based solely on such statement without other evidence
- Right of private defence exceeded
