Holding that the right to self-defence is a limited right conferred on a person for protection of his/her life and property, the Supreme Court ruled that it cannot be used as a pretext for a retributive offence to kill somebody.
"A right to defend does not include a right to launch an offensive, particularly when the need to defend no longer survived," a Bench comprising Justice Arijit Pasyat and Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta said.
Partially allowing an appeal by an accused, the Bench converted his conviction under Section 302 (murder) to Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and reduced the life imprisonment imposed by the Uttaranchal High Court to a 10-year imprisonment.
Accused Naveen Chandra was sentenced to death by Bageshwar Sessions Court for the murder of his paternal uncle Ganesh Dutt, aunt Janki Devi and the couple's child Sandeep over a family dispute at village Baira Majhara in Bageshwar District of Uttaranchal in June 2001.
The court had also convicted Naveen's parents Nanda Ballabh and Kamla Devi to life imprisonment in the same case.
However, the High Court acquitted his parents and commuted Naveen's death sentence to life imprisonment. He then approached the apex court seeking acuittal in the case on the ground that the offence was committed in self-defence during an altercation with the victims and that it was not pre-mediated.
{{/usCountry}}However, the High Court acquitted his parents and commuted Naveen's death sentence to life imprisonment. He then approached the apex court seeking acuittal in the case on the ground that the offence was committed in self-defence during an altercation with the victims and that it was not pre-mediated.
{{/usCountry}}However, disagreeing with the appellant, the Supreme Court said the right to private defence is essentially a defensive right available under the Indian Penal Code only when the circumstances clearly justify it.
"It is a right of defence, not of retribution, expected to repel unlawful aggression and not as a retaliatory measure," it observed.
The court held that the appellant had exceeded his right to self defence by continuing the attacks even after the threat to his life had ceased.
Email Satya Prakash: satya.prakash@hindustantimes.com