RAJ SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA ETC.

RAJ SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA ETC.

The appellant was not entitled to the right of private defence or the benefit of Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC because he was the aggressor and the incident occurred in the complainant's house. The act of firing shots, resulting in the death, was not to avert any harm that could have been reasonably apprehended. There was no credible evidence that the complainant party were armed or aggressive. The conviction under Section 302 IPC is affirmed as the appellant acted aggressively without lawful justification.

Parties
Appellant: Raj Singh; Respondent: State of Haryana; Complainant: Bharat Singh; Co Accused: Rishi Pal; Co Accused: Rajpal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Decision (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Culpable Homicide, Private Defence, Self Defence, Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC
Criminal Law Culpable Homicide Private Defence Self Defence Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raj Singh

Appellant

State of Haryana

Respondent

Bharat Singh

Complainant

Rishi Pal

Co Accused

Rajpal

Co Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Decision (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to right of private defence extending to voluntary causing of death
  2. 2 Whether the act of firing shots by appellant was justified or exceeded the right of private defence
  3. 3 Applicability of Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC to appellant's actions

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not entitled to the right of private defence or the benefit of Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC because he was the aggressor and the incident occurred in the complainant's house. The act of firing shots, resulting in the death, was not to avert any harm that could have been reasonably apprehended. There was no credible evidence that the complainant party were armed or aggressive. The conviction under Section 302 IPC is affirmed as the appellant acted aggressively without lawful justification.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Conviction of Raj Singh under Section 302 IPC and life imprisonment is confirmed
  • Appeals by Raj Singh dismissed