Case name: Sekar @ Raja Sekharan Vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu (2002) 8 SCC 345

Equivalent Citations: 2003 SCC (Cri) 16; 2002 SCC OnLine SC 946

Date of Judgement: 03/10/2002

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2002

Case Type: Criminal Appeal

Petitioner: Sekar @ Raja Sekharan

Respondent: State Rep. By Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu

Bench: Hon’ble Justice S.B Sinha and Hon’ble Justice Arijit Pasayat

Court: Supreme Court of India

Statutes Referred:

  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 105
  • Indian Penal Code,1860; Sections 30, 96, 100, 101, 302

Cases Referred:

  • Munshi Ram and Others Vs Delhi Administration, 1968 AIR 702;
  • State of U.P. Vs Mohammad Musheer Khan and Ors, AIR (1977) SC 2226;
  • State of Gujarat Vs Bai Fatima & Anr, 1975 AIR 1478;
  • Mohinder Pal Jolly Vs State of Punjab, 1979 AIR 577;
  • Salim Zia Vs State Of U.P, 1979 AIR 391;
  • Lakshmi Singh and Ors Vs State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263;
  • In Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, AIR (1963) SC 612

Facts:

  • There was a heated conversation between the accused i.e., Sekar @ Raja Sekharan and respondent i.e., Palaniswamy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), over the release of a sheep.
  • Palaniswamy impounded the sheep which were destroying his crops. The accused and others went to the sheep’s tie-up location and they united it from the rope. This resulted in an exchange of words between the accused and the deceased.
  • When the deceased fell down after receiving injuries to his hand and left shoulder, the accused inflicted blow on his neck again.
  • Then, an F.I.R was lodged against the accused, a charge sheet was placed, and the accused faced trial.
  • The accused took the plea of false implication. The trial found the plea of the accused that the assaults were made in exercise of the right of private defence was not accepted. Even after the deceased had fallen down, the accused inflicted a further blow on the neck. Hence, the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased.
  • The High Court of Madras analyzed that the conviction of accused was justified.
  • Thus, the accused filed an appeal by feeling aggrieved against the decision passed by the High Court of Madras for his conviction of punishable offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and consequential sentence of imprisonment for life.

Issue involved:

  • Whether the right of private defence under Section 96 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be pressed into service by the accused?
  • Whether the appeal is maintainable or not?

Contentions of Appellant:

The counsel for Appellant’s contended that:

  • The evidence of witnesses examined to substantiate the stand of right of private defence has been lightly brushed aside by the trial court and the High Court.
  • Furthermore, contented that according to the prosecution version Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has no application because assaults were committed in the course of sudden quarrel.

Contentions of Respondent:

The counsel for the state of gave following contentions to counter the Appellant’s arguments:

  • The State of Tamil Nadu contented that the trial court and the High Court analyzed after the factual position that the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased.
  • Furthermore, contented that this is not a case in which the accused can exercise the right of private defence, which can be invoked.

Judgement:

The appeal was allowed.

The court said two rustic villagers fought over a sheep which led to the death of one. This appears to be a case of accused exceeding right of private defence. Thus, the Apex Court had reduced the sentence for conviction of accused to 10 years and if the accused is not required to be in custody in any other case, he shall be released forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi:

Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 does not define the expression ‘right of private defence’. It merely indicates that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of such a right. The burden of proof is on the accused, who takes the plea of self-defence. Under Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in the absence of proof, it is not possible for the Court to presume the truth of the plea of self-defence. 

Conclusion:

The Apex Court emphasized the meaning and scope of ‘right of private defence’ in this matter. Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that ‘Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.There was an altercation between the accused and the deceased and there was no pre-meditation and the assaults were given by the accused during the course sudden quarrel.

According to the court this case was brought within the ambit of Expection IV to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and custodial sentence of 10 years would meet ends of justice.

Drafted By: Samanta Rao, CLS – Gitarattan International Business School

Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider

Published On: October 6, 2021 at 10:04 IST

Related Post