Murder | Self-Defence Plea Must Be Assessed From Accused's Perspective Of Imminent Threat, Not With Calm Hindsight: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the fundamental consideration in the question of whether private defence was exceeded, cannot be based on a calm and retrospective appraisal the concerned person could have adopted, but whether the force employed could reasonable by assessed towards imminent danger as it appeared to the person then.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further opined that where the person apprehended the assailant to be capable of causing grave injury or taking life, the degree of fear the resulted from such apprehension was the relevant factor in answering the aforementioned question, and the plea of self defence must be examined without adopting a hyper-technical approach.

“It would, therefore, be legally impermissible to determine the question of excess by isolating the injuries caused from the circumstances in which they were inflicted or by applying a standard of detached deliberation to a situation of sudden peril.”

These observations were made by the Court while hearing an application for suspension of sentence against an order of conviction and sentence wherein the applicant was convicted for murder committed with knowledge but without intention. In the matter, the counsel for the applicant had relied heavily on his right to self defence.

In this regard, the Court opined that a person suddenly exposed to assault, apprehending death, could not be expected to weight the precise degree of force required to repel the attack. When the fear, apprehension and disturbed mental equilibrium operated together in the heat of the moment, the capacity of making such measured assessment was inevitably impaired.

“The assessment must consequently be contextual, pragmatic and informed by the totality of the circumstances, including the initiation and progression of the occurrence, the nature of the apprehended threat, the availability of an effective avenue of escape or assistance, the weapons involved and the mental state reasonably attributable to the person acting in self-preservation.”

In this background, the Court held that such assessment would require examination at the appellant stage, and could not be appropriately examined while considering the present application for suspension of sentence.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence was allowed and the sentence was suspended till the final disposal of the appeal.