By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
ApniLawApniLawApniLaw
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Reading: Private Defence Must Be Preventive, Not Punitive: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction In Land Dispute Case
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
ApniLawApniLaw
Font ResizerAa
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
  • Acts
  • Documentation
  • BNSS
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
ApniLaw > Blog > Civil > Land Dispute & Will > Private Defence Must Be Preventive, Not Punitive: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction In Land Dispute Case
CriminalLand Dispute & WillNewsSupreme Court

Private Defence Must Be Preventive, Not Punitive: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction In Land Dispute Case

Amna Kabeer
Last updated: January 23, 2025 6:48 pm
Amna Kabeer
5 months ago
Share
Private Defence Must Be Preventive, Not Punitive: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction In Land Dispute Case
Private Defence Must Be Preventive, Not Punitive: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction In Land Dispute Case
SHARE

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.

Contents
Supreme Court on Private DefenceAppellant’s Arguments RejectedVerdict and Remission Option


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.

You Might Also Like

Section 232 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS) – Commitment Of Case To Court Of Session When Offence Is Triable Exclusively By It.

CrPC Section 411: Executive Magistrates – Making Over or Withdrawal of Cases

Section 192 CrPC: Transfer of Cases to Magistrates – Code of Criminal Procedure

Section 147 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS) – Enforcement Of Order Of Maintenance.

How To File A Case Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act?

TAGGED:DefenceEvidenceIndiaIndian LawLegal
Share This Article
Facebook Email Print
Previous Article Push For CNAP Caller ID: Supreme Court Seeks Response On PIL Push For CNAP Caller ID: Supreme Court Seeks Response On PIL
Next Article Old Age Pension Cannot Be Denied Due To Family Support: Madras High Court Old Age Pension Cannot Be Denied Due To Family Support: Madras High Court
3 Comments
  • Pingback: Feasibility Of Separate Cycle Tracks Across India Under Scrutiny ...
  • Pingback: Plea Against MM Lawrence's Body Donation For Medical Research..
  • Pingback: Push For CNAP Caller ID: Supreme Court Seeks Response On PIL

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow US

Find US on Social Medias
FacebookLike
XFollow
InstagramFollow
YoutubeSubscribe

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Popular News
Allahabad High Court Clears Path For Suits In Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque Dispute
Allahabad High CourtCivilHigh CourtNews

Civil Court Decree Necessary for Name Change in Board Certificates: Allahabad High Court

Amna Kabeer
By Amna Kabeer
4 months ago
Supreme Court Ruled: Legal Heirs Of Road Accident Victims Cannot Be Denied Full Compensation
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Ashutosh Garg In ₹1,032 Crore GST Fraud Case
No Personal Presence Required in Domestic Violence Proceedings: SC
Calcutta High Court Rules Section 354A IPC Cannot Be Applied Against Women
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

Your one-stop destination for legal news, articles, queries, and a directory of lawyers in India – all under one roof at ApniLaw.

Stay Updated

  • BNSS
  • News
  • Documentation
  • Acts
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court

Information

  • ApniLaw Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Advertise

  • Advertise with us
  • Newsletters
  • Deal

Find Us on Socials

ApniLawApniLaw
Follow US
© ApniLaw 2025. All Rights Reserved.
bg-n
Join Us!
Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss our latest news, podcasts etc..
Zero spam, Unsubscribe at any time.

More Interesting News

Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over 'Inhuman Working Hours' Of Resident Doctors During RG Kar Hospital Case Hearing

Right to Education, Healthcare, and Public Facilities for Transgender Persons (Section 8–9)?

Arrest During Night Time

Offences and Penalties Under the Transgender Persons Act (Sections 18–19)

login
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?