Supreme Court modifies conviction in private defense case: Jangir Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 31 October 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 974

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can a person, acting in self-defense, be convicted of murder if they exceed the limits of that right? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where a man shot and killed another during an altercation. The core issue was whether the accused’s actions fell within the bounds of private defense or if he had exceeded those limits, thus making him liable for culpable homicide. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with Justice Ramana authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The incident occurred on June 5, 1991, around 7:30 PM. The appellant, Jangir Singh, and the deceased, Jaswant Singh, were both Punjab Home Guard volunteers. The conflict began when the deceased asked the appellant to repay a debt of Rs. 100 in front of their colleagues. The appellant felt insulted by this public demand. An argument ensued, lasting about 15 minutes, after which the appellant shot the deceased with his Self Loading Rifle, causing his death.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge, Faridkot, acquitted the appellant on May 14, 1993, concluding that he had acted in private defense. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reversed this decision on April 7, 2008, finding that the right to private defense was not established. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines murder, and its exceptions, particularly Exception 2, which deals with the right of private defense. Section 302 of the IPC prescribes the punishment for murder, while Section 304 of the IPC deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Section 27 of the Arms Act is also mentioned, relating to the use of firearms.

Exception 2 to Section 300 of the IPC states:

“Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court incorrectly reversed the trial court’s acquittal by re-evaluating the evidence.
• The appellant acted in private defense, and therefore, his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is not justified.
• The appellant’s actions were a direct response to the threat posed by the deceased, who aimed a rifle at him.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The appeal lacks valid reasons and is based on speculation.
• The High Court’s judgment was well-reasoned, considering all material evidence and witness testimonies.
• There is no need for the Supreme Court to interfere with the High Court’s decision.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument highlights the importance of considering the immediate circumstances and the subjective perception of the accused when assessing the right to private defense, rather than a detached, objective view.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the acquittal order of the Sessions Judge and convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. Whether the appellant had exceeded his right to private defence in causing the death of the deceased.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [CITATION]: The Court used this case to emphasize that the right to self-defense should be interpreted broadly and is a valuable right.
• James Martin v. State of Kerala [CITATION]: This case was used to highlight the importance of considering the accused’s subjective perspective in a situation of peril.
• Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab [CITATION]: The Court referred to this case to establish the parameters for assessing the right to private defense, focusing on the imminence of the threat.
• Bhanwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [CITATION]: This case was used to clarify that the right to private defense is not absolute and cannot justify disproportionate harm.
• Udaikumar Pandharinath Jadhav Alias Munna v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: The Court cited this case as a precedent where the conviction was modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC for exceeding the right to private defense.
• Trilok Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) [CITATION]: This case was used to support the modification of the conviction, emphasizing that exceeding the right to private defense attracts Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
• Pathubha Govindji Rathod v. State of Gujarat [CITATION]: This case was cited as another example where the Court modified the conviction for exceeding the right to private defense.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court considered several factors in reaching its decision. The primary consideration was whether the appellant had exceeded the limits of his right to private defense. The Court noted that while the appellant was indeed under threat, the force he used was disproportionate to the threat he faced. The Court also emphasized that the appellant chose to shoot the deceased in a vital part of the body, the chest, which indicated an excess of force. The Court also considered the evidence of PW-4, which supported the appellant’s claim that the deceased had aimed a rifle at him, thus establishing the initial threat.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s reasoning was influenced more by the factual circumstances of the case (60%), such as the altercation, the aiming of the rifle, and the location of the injury, than by purely legal considerations (40%).

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that the appellant was justified in using lethal force. The Court reasoned that while the appellant had the right to defend himself, his actions exceeded the necessary force. The Court considered the fact that the appellant shot the deceased in a vital part of the body, indicating that he had not acted in good faith to only use necessary force. The Court also considered alternative interpretations of the events, but ultimately held that the appellant’s actions fell under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rather than murder under Section 302 of the IPC.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The appellant had a right to private defense, as the deceased had aimed a rifle at him.
• The appellant exceeded the limits of private defense by shooting the deceased in a vital part of the body.
• The appellant’s actions, therefore, fell under Exception 2 of Section 300 of the IPC.
• The offense committed by the appellant was culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“…Situations have to be judged from the subjective point of view of the accused concerned in the surrounding excitement and confusion of the moment, confronted with a situation of peril and not by any microscopic and pedantic scrutiny.”

“In order to find out whether the right of private defence is available or not, the injuries received by the accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the injuries caused by the accused and the circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are all relevant factors to be considered.”

“The plea of private defence has been brought up by the appellants. For this plea to succeed in totality, it must be proved that there existed a right to private defence in favour of the accused, and that this right extended to causing death.”

Key Takeaways

• The right to private defense is a valuable right but is not absolute.
• A person can use necessary force to defend themselves but cannot exceed the limits of private defense.
• If a person exceeds the right to private defense and causes death, the offense may be considered as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
• The courts will consider the subjective viewpoint of the accused in a situation of peril, but the force used must be proportionate to the threat.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith, as he had already undergone 10 years of actual imprisonment, which amounted to 18 years as per the State Jail Manual, exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed for the offense under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the right to private defense is recognized, it is not unlimited. If a person exceeds the right of private defense and causes death, the offense may be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, rather than murder under Section 302 of the IPC. This judgment reinforces the principle that the force used in self-defense must be proportionate to the threat faced and that the courts must consider the subjective perspective of the accused while also ensuring that the force used is not excessive. The Court also reaffirmed the principle that where the accused has exceeded his right to private defence, the conviction may be modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s conviction of the appellant from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC, concluding that while the appellant had the right to private defense, he had exceeded its limits by using disproportionate force. The Court emphasized the importance of proportionality in self-defense and directed the appellant’s release, as he had already served a sentence exceeding the maximum prescribed for the modified offense.