The Supreme Court on January 9 emphasized that the right to private defence must be strictly preventive, not punitive or retributive. The Court ruled that causing death is justified only when there is a reasonable and imminent apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
Supreme Court on Private Defence
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld the conviction of an appellant accused of murder. The case involved a dispute over land fencing where the appellant stabbed the deceased. While the appellant claimed self-defence, the Court noted the absence of reasonable apprehension of imminent danger.
The Court highlighted that actions in self-defence must aim to avert danger, not inflict harm or vengeance. It referred to the precedent set in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) and stated that private defence should not be construed narrowly but must meet specific conditions.
Appellant’s Arguments Rejected
The Court denied the appellant the benefit of Exception 2 under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It found no good faith or absence of premeditation in the appellant’s actions, noting he arrived with a knife and continued to assault the unarmed victim after the initial attack.
The Court also rejected the argument for Exception 4 (sudden fight), stating the appellant acted with undue advantage and cruelty.
Verdict and Remission Option
While affirming the conviction, the Court allowed the appellant to seek remission under Kerala’s State policy, considering he had served nine years in prison.
