_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - Jassa Singh & Ors v. State of Haryana,
Citation - Criminal Appeal No. 1404-05 of 1999 decided on 8th January 2002
Parties involved -
Petitioner - Jassa Singh & Ors
Respondent - State of Haryana
Bench -
D.P. Mohapatra
K.G. Balakrishnan
Relevant Acts and Sections –
Section 302 of IPC, 1860
Section 307 of IPC, 1860
Section 149 of IPC, 1860
Section 103 of IPC, 1860
Facts of the Case –
There was an ongoing property dispute between the appellants and the defendants. The deceased was the Gram Panchayat who had leased out his land to the appellants and two others. But two months prior to the incident re-auction was done through which the land was given to the appellants.
While the case was still going on, there was a quarrel among them on 2nd July 1992 at 5:00 PM.
The appellants fired shots at the respondents. This resulted in the death of two people.
The appellants were charged under Section 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC
.
Issue of the Case –
Whether the appellant can be protected under the right of private defense?
Arguments of the Petitioner –
Counsel for the deceased contented that murder and culpable homicide has been committed by the appellants. They have used unreasonable force again the deceased.
Arguments of the Respondent –
Counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants were entitled to exercise their right of private defense as Surmukh Singh and others had trespassed into the property possessed by Jassa Singh and caused mischief by destroying the standing crops. (Under Section 103 of IPC)
Judgment of the Case –
In the instant case, the appellants went to the place of occurrence with guns and deadly weapons. This would clearly indicate that there was pre-meditation on the part of the appellants. From the acts committed by the appellant, it is evident that they had the intention of doing more harm than was necessary for the purpose of self-defense. Therefore, the acts committed by the appellants will not come within Exception 2 of Section 300 IPC so as to make it culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
There were disputes between the parties and there was also pending litigation. The appellants had also resorted to civil remedies. That apart, the evidence also does not indicate that there was a serious apprehension that death or grievous hurt would be the consequence of the act allegedly committed by Surmukh Singh and others. Therefore, the assailants had no right to take away the life of Surmukh Singh in the exercise of the alleged right of private defense.
Related Case Laws -
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " Can You Kill Someone Who Trespasses Your Property?" by clicking the button below.
Komentáře