Armed With Lethal Weapon, Exceeded Right Of Private Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Murder Conviction

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to interfere with a murder conviction from 2003, observing that the accused persons exceeded the right to private defence as they were armed with lethal weapons during a scuffle with the deceased. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed, "Given the superior numerical strength of the accused party, vis-a-vis, the numerical strength of the complainant party, besides with the complainant party not being so well armed, as were the accused party, thereby the accused party did exceed their right of private defence of body, and, of property. The same becomes further firmly engendered from the fact, that the accused party inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased Nirmal Singh, thus even when he was lying on the ground. Therefore, the right of private defence, if any, which was available to become claimed by the accused party rather become exceeded."The appeal was filed by the two convicts who were convicted of murder under Sections 302, 323, and 34 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Trial Court.According to the FIR, both the accused namely Mangal Singh and Gurdev Singh entered into a fight with the deceased. The accused persons, armed with an iron rod and handle of a hand pump, gave a fatal blow to the deceased and consequently, he succumbed to the injuries.After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that as per the autopsy report, the death was caused due to injuries on the head and brain "sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature."The Court rejected the argument of the accused person attacked in the right to private defence.Adding that it has to be seen whether the accused persons were more in strength than the complainant party when a scuffle broke, the bench said, "it is also required to be fathomed from the evidence available on record whether the accused were equally armed as was the complainant party. Significantly also it is required to be determined whether the accused exceeded or did not exceed the exercisings of their rights of private defence of body, and/or, of persons.""Given the superior numerical strength of the accused party, vis-a-vis, the numerical strength of the complainant party, besides with the complainant party not being so well armed, as were the accused party, thereby the accused party did exceed their right of private defence of body, and, of property," the Court noted.The bench added that the same became clear from the fact that the accused party inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased Nirmal Singh, even when he was lying on the ground. Therefore, the right of private defence, if any, was exceeded, added the bench.Consequently, the plea was dismissed.Mr. Sandeep Singh Majithia, AdvocateMr. Shiv Deep, Advocate andMs. Chandanpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellants.Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.Title: MANGAL SINGH @ MANGA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 185Click here to read/download the order

Armed With Lethal Weapon, Exceeded Right Of Private Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Murder Conviction

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags