Skip to content


Jagat Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 289 of 1971
Judge
Reported in(1976)4SCC296
AppellantJagat Singh
RespondentState of Himachal Pradesh
DispositionAppeal Dismissed
Excerpt:
- [ p.n. bhagwati,; r.s. sarkaria and; y.v. chandrachud, jj.] -- penal code, 1860 — sections 102, 100 and 103 — right of private defence of person and property exceeded and death caused — conviction altered by high court from section 302 to section 304 part i and sentence of life imprisonment reduced to three years -- having heard mr jain for the appellant, we see no reason whatsoever for interfering with the well-considered judgment of the delhi high court. the injuries received by the members of the appellant's party were far too trivial to justify the killing of gurdas......received by the members of the appellant's party were far too trivial to justify the killing of gurdas. in fact the appellant himself had received no injury at all. even assuming, therefore, that the appellant had a right of private defence of person or property, he clearly exceeded that right. the high court was as lenient as a court would be in reducing the offence from section 302 to section 304 part i of the penal code, and the sentence of life imprisonment to a period of three years.3. the order to conviction and sentence is accordingly confirmed and the appeal dismissed.
Judgment:

Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. Having heard Mr Jain for the appellant, we see no reason whatsoever for interfering with the well-considered judgment of the Delhi High Court.

2. The deceased Gurdas was unarmed and there was no justification on the part of the appellant for inflicting a severe blow on his head with a takwa. The injuries received by the members of the appellant's party were far too trivial to justify the killing of Gurdas. In fact the appellant himself had received no injury at all. Even assuming, therefore, that the appellant had a right of private defence of person or property, he clearly exceeded that right. The High Court was as lenient as a court would be in reducing the offence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the Penal Code, and the sentence of life imprisonment to a period of three years.

3. The order to conviction and sentence is accordingly confirmed and the appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //