KATTA SURENDERA       ----

APPELLANT
                            VS
                      STATE OF A.P.          ----RESPONDENT
         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1525 OF 2007
Citation: 2008 (3) Cr.L.J. 3196 SC
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, P.P. Naolekar
PROVISIONS OF IPC
INVOLVED
 Section 96: Things done in private defence- Nothing is an offence which is done in the
exercise of the right of private defence. 
 Section 97: Right of private defence of the body and of property-Every person has a right,
subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend-
 (First) — His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the
human body;
 (Secondly) —The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person,
against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or
criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, rob­bery, mischief or criminal trespass.
 Section 302: Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for
life], and shall also be liable to fine.
 Section 304: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Whoever
commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 1[imprisonment
for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or
with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any
intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
 Section 324: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means-Whoever, except
in the case provided for by section 334, volun­tarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for
shooting, stab­bing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to
cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any
corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance
which it is deleterious to the human body to in­hale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or
by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either de­scription for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
FACTS OF THE CASE
 The deceased and material witnesses were the residents of Chinnavenkataramanagari Pale and
the accused were residents of Kammavaripalle. Since the time of MPTC elections in 2001,
there were disputes between both the villagers.
  As there was no road facility to approach Chinnavenkataramanagari village, the deceased and
material witnesses were trying to lay a road connecting to their village to Mulakalachervu.
About six months prior to the incident, they purchased a land from PW- 16 in the name of
PW5 and another to lay the road. 
 Against the said purchase, the villagers of Kammavaripalle filed a suit seeking an order of
injunction restraining the defendants from laying the road and the result of the suit went in
favour of villagers of Chinnavenkatramangaripalli village.
 On 8.3.2002, on information that the villagers were attempting to lay the road, the Sub-
Inspector of Police(PW-31) called both villagers and advised them to wait for one week as
the matter was pending.
 Inspite of it, on 9.3.2002 the villagers started laying the road. PW-5 and another, in whose
name the land was purchased, requested PW-31 to arrange police protection, on  which PW 31
sent PW 17 along with him immediately and also sent PW-18 and three other constables to the
scene of offence.Subsequently, PW-5 and PW 17 went and informed the villagers to stop the
work, as there was likelihood of some incident. 
 While they were standing, all the accused armed with sickles, knives, daggers and a bag
containing bombs and sticks went near them shouting as to how they dared to lay road and
they will see their end. So saying, the accused attacked the prosecution party.
 A-13 hurled a bomb, which exploded, and A-2 also hurled a bomb which fell on the ground
but did not explode. They all tried to run away due to explosion of the bombs. A1 stabbed the
deceased No. l with a dagger on his left chest due to which he fell down and succumbed to the
injury on the spot. Then A-2 to A-4 attacked deceased No.2. Immediately, A-2, A-4 to A-11,
A-13 to A-18, A-19 to A-24, A-30 and A-32 attacked PWs. 1 to 11. On a complaint given by
PW-l, the police registered a crime and took up investigation. After completion of the
investigation, the police laid the charge sheet.
DECISION OF TRIAL COURT
 The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs 1 to 33 and marked
their statements. On defence side DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. D-1 to D-65 and their
statements were also marked. Contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses
were marked. 
 The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted A-1 for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for
life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 
 A7, A9, A 11 and A-17 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and
sentenced each to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each,
in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. All the accused were acquitted for all
other offences. 
 The appellant and the three convicted accused persons being aggrieved by the judgment of the
trial Court, preferred appeal before the High Court challenging its validity and legality.
APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT
 The allegation of the prosecution was that A-1 stabbed deceased No. l with a dagger and killed
him. A-7, A-9, A-11  and A-17 were convicted for the offence under  section 324  I.P.C. for
causing injuries to the witnesses.
 The accused pleaded that there was pelting of stones by the mob in connection with the
dispute regarding the laying of the road, therefore, it is very difficult to say as to who beat
whom and who threw stones on him and it is not safe to find the appellants guilty of any of the
offences and they shall be given benefit of doubt and the judgment of the lower Court has to be
set aside.
 The High Court found that the accusation was clearly established so far as the appellant is
concerned and did not accept the plea that because a single blow was given the offence was
not covered under Section 302 IPC and was to be altered to Section 304 Part II IPC.
 The High Court upheld the judgement of the trial court.
APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME
COURT
  In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the background facts
have not been correctly analysed by the trial court and the High Court. It  should have been
held that the appellant was exercising the right of private defence.
  According to the appellant even if the prosecution version is accepted in total he was
exercising the right of private defence and therefore no offence was made out.
 Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that the case is clearly
covered under Section 302 IPC. The accused-appellant was the leader of the group and no
explanation was offered why he was carrying a knife with him unless he had requisite
intention to cause homicidal death of the deceased No. 1. Additionally it is submitted that there
is no scope for accepting the plea of right of private defence.
 The Supreme Court held that a plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises
and speculation. In order to find whether the right of private defence is available to an
accused, the entire incident must be examined with care and viewed in its proper setting. 
  Section 97 IPC deals with the subject-matter of right of private defence. The plea of right of
private defence comprises the body or property (i) of the person exercising the right, or (ii) of
any other person; and the right may be exercised in the case of any offence against the body,
and in the case of offences of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, and attempts at such
offences in relation to property.
 Section 99 lays down the limits of the right of private defence. Sections 96 and 98 give a right
of private defence against certain offences and acts. The right given under Sections 96 to 98
 and 100 to 106 is controlled by Section 99.
 To claim a right of private defence extending to voluntary causing of death, 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 him. The burden is on the accused to  show
that he had a right of private defence which extended to causing of death. 
 The right of private defence 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 not until there is that reasonable apprehension. The right lasts so
long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body continues.
  In Jai Dev v. State of Punjab (1963 (3) SCC 489) it was observed that as soon as the cause for
reasonable apprehension disappears and the threat has either been destroyed or has been put to
route, there can be no occasion to exercise the right of private defence.
 In the instant case, even if it is accepted that at some point of time the appellant was exercising
right of private  defence, the same had ceased long before the blow was given by the appellant.
 It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever a single blow is given
application of Section 302 IPC is ruled out. It would depend upon several factors.
 In the circumstances of the present case, conviction is accordingly altered. The appropriate
conviction is under Section 304 Part I IPC. Custodial sentence of ten years would meet the
ends of justice. The court allowed the appeal to the aforesaid extent.
LATEST CASE LAWS
 Lalu Joseph vs The State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2020(CRL.A. No. 1149 of 2016)
 In this case one Abdul Sammad (PW13) was the owner and in possession of 33 rubber trees at
Palemad comprised in Edakkara Village. On 5.1.2011, PW13 executed greement in favour of
PW1- Rasheed. The accused had made an unsuccessful attempt to take the aforesaid rubber
trees for slaughter tapping. The accused had earlier taken the rubber trees standing in his
adjacent properties for slaughter tapping and ever since then he had an eye on the aforesaid 33
rubber trees as well for slaughter tapping.
 On 5.1.2011 at about 4 pm on account of the previous enmity, the accused had stabbed
Ibrahim, one of the close friends of PW1, on his chest, by means of MO1 chisel and when
PW1 tried to intervene, the accused had inflicted stab injuries on his right abdomen and left
underarm by using the very same weapon. Ibrahim succumbed to the injuries and PW1 was
taken to the hospital for treatment.
 By judgement dated 11.11.2016 the session judge convicted the accused for life imprisonment
and 1 lakh rupees fine. Aggreived by the conviction and sentence the accused appealed in the
high court.
 Before the court, the learned counsel for accused contented the accused was validly exercising
right of private defence. According to the learned Senior Public Prosecutor the injuries
sustained to the accused in the very same occurrence were explained by the prosecution and
the right of private defence was not available to the accused.
 The Apex Court held in various cases  that the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the
accused at the time of occurrence or in the course of altercation, is a very important
circumstance from which the court can draw the inference that the prosecution has suppressed
the genesis and origin of occurrence and has thus not presented the true version.
 The court held that the appellant, who in the aforementioned facts and circumstances, only
inflicted stab injury on the chest of the deceased, cannot be said to have exceeded the right of
private defence. 
 The court held  in this case, the prosecution had suppressed the injuries sustained to the
accused. Non explanation of serious injuries sustained to the accused has cut the root of the
prosecution case. Judged by the above standards, the court  was  of the view that the acts done
by the accused were in the reasonable limits of exercise of right of private defence and he was
entitled to the protection afforded in law under Section 96 of the IPC.
 Accordingly, the court  set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The
appeal was allowed.
 Chellapandi vs Madurai District on 14 November, 2017( Crl.R.C MD 251 of 2008)
 The brief facts of the case is that on 07.12.2003 at about 08.30 p.m., while P.W.1/defacto
complainant namely, Kannadichamy was standing in front of one Selvam Tea Stall, all the
accused appeared before P.W.1/defacto complainant in which accused-1 had a knife and others
had wooden logs and iron rods and A1 told towards the defacto complainant that he betraying
the Ganja hidden by me to the police, then attacked P.W.1 complainant on his lip with knife
and caused injury, then A2 attacked P.W. complainant on his left elbow with wooden logs and
caused injury, then A3 attached P.W.1 complainant on his right elbow with wooden logs and
caused injury at that time P.W.1 complainant raised alarm, after his wife namely Rani came to
the place of occurrence while A4 attacked the wife of P.W.1/defacto complainant on her lip
and caused injury then A5 slapped at her cheeks by hand. Accused A1-A5 were convicted
under diferent sections of IPC –147,148,149,323,325,326 by the trial court. Against the
judgement of trial court an appeal was preffered before Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court No.II, Madurai, and the same was dismissed on 08.02.2008, by confirming the
Judgment of the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the revision was  filed befor the high
court.
 The learned counsel for the petitioners / accused submitted that the main grounds for revision
are that the occurrence is  free fight with the petitioners / accused that had happened at the
village and that P.W.1 complainant and his associates are the aggressors and that the second
petitioner in this case/second accused had suffered injury whereas when he had gone to the
police station to prefer the complaint, the Inspector of Police, without properly conducting the
investigation, had arrested him and foisted a false case against him.
 Having regard to the principles emerged in case of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, the
court held the view that the appellant reasonably apprehended a danger to his life when the
deceased and his brothers started strangulating him after pushing him to the floor. As
observed by the Court a mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-
defence into operation and it is not necessary that there should be an actual commission of
the offence in order to give rise to the right of private defence. It is enough if the appellant
apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and is likely to be committed if the right of
private defence is not exercised.?
 Here is a case where the 2nd petitioner had suffered injuries and he had examined himself
and marked the wound certificate as Ex D1.The wounds are not superficial. No investigation
has been done by the respondent to conclude who the real aggressors are and no explanation
had been given to explain the injuries suffered by the 2nd petitioner. 
  The prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, the
Criminal Revision Case was allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the
petitioners/accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti, Madurai District,
and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Court , Madurai,  was set aside. The fine
amount if any paid by the petitioners was directed to be refunded to them.
Submitted by- Prabhsimran Singh 
                           Section- B Semester-5
                           Roll No. 82/18
                        
                                                Submitted to- Dr. Puspinder Kaur