Accused must show real threat to his life existed: SC

New Delhi, Dec 27 (UNI) In an important ruling defining the limits of right of private defence available to an accused, the Supreme Court has ruled that the accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to the accused.

The ruling was handed down by a bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and Lokeshwar Singh Panta while reducing the life term awarded to a man held guilty of committing triple murder to ten years' rigorous imprisonment holding that facts and circumstances prove that there was real threat to the life of accused and his family members.

The appellant Naveen Chandra was awarded death sentence by the trial court while his parents namely Kamla Devi and her husband Nanda Ballabh were sentenced to life imprisonment.

The deceased Ganesh Dutta the real brother of Nanda Ballabh along with his wife Janki Devi and son Sandeep Dutta were murdered on June 2, 2001.

The Uttaranchal high court, however, acquitted Kamla and her husband Nanda Ballabh but upheld the conviction of the appellant Naveen and reduced his death sentence to life imprisonment. The triple murder was the outcome of serious differences between the families of the two brothers.

The apex court in its judgment ruled, ''The right of self defence is a very valuable right serving a social purpose and should not be narrowly construed. The right of private defence is essentially a defensive right circumscribed by the governing statute i.e., IPC available only when the circumstances clearly justify it. It should not be allowed to be pleaded or availed as a pretext for a vindictive, aggressive or retributive purpose of offence. It is a right of defence not of retribution, expected to repel unlawful aggression and not as retaliatory measure.'' The apex court concluded by holding, ''The number of injuries is not always a safe criteria for determining who the aggressor was.

Non explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of occurence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance. A plea of right of private defence can not be based on surmises and speculation.The right commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence, although the offence may not have been committed. But if in guise of self preservation what really has been done is to assault the original aggressor, even after the cause of reasonable apprehension has disappeared, the plea of right of private defencer can legitimately be negatived.'' The apex court while accepting the plea of imminent threat upheld the contention of the appellant that the offence took place while he was exercising his right of self defence but ruled that the appellant had exceeded his right of self defence and hence converted the offence from section 302 to section 304 part-I of IPC and reduced the life term to ten years' imprisonment.

UNI AKS/SC RP HS1903