RATHEESHKUMAR @ BABU VERSUS THE STATE OF KERALA (SUPREME COURT)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1049 OF 2018

(i) The first important question is whether the appellant-convict at the relevant time was having a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt or danger to his property at the hands of the deceased, and was justified in causing fatal injuries to the deceased in his right of private defence; and the second question would be that if the appellant was justified in causing injuries to the deceased in his right of private defence, whether he had caused more harm than it was necessary.

(ii) The Court should take an overall view of the case and if a right of self-defence is made out from the evidence on record, thatright should not be construed narrowly because the right of self-defence is a very valuable right and it has a social purpose.

(iii) As regards the first question, in the given circumstances, itis difficult to discern any reasonable apprehension of imminent danger on the part of the accused. The law is well settled in this regard. The impending danger must be present, real or apparent.According to the testimony of PW-1, an altercation occurred between the deceased and the appellant’s father, leading to a ‘push and pull’. Following this, the appellant’s father called for the appellant. Upon arriving at the scene, bearing a knife, the appellant found his father already holding the deceased by the neck. These facts do not provide any basis to suggest that the appellant had a reasonable apprehension of imminent danger to justify causing the death of the deceased. Moreover, the defense argument claiming protection of property appears unfounded in this context, as the facts do not support any imminent threat to the appellant’s property.

(iv) What was the appellant-convict trying to protect? Was he trying to protect the life of his father or his own life? Was he trying to protect his property? To a very specific question put by us to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-convict in this regard the reply was that the appellant-convict was trying to protect his property. We tried to understand from the learned counsel as to what was that imminent threat to his property that the appellant-convict had to go to the extent of using knife and stabbing the deceased to death. The oral evidence on record indicates that the deceased wanted to put up a fence on the West side of his farm. The compound of the deceased and that of the accused convict are adjacent to each other. It is not the case of the appellant-convict that the deceased trespassed into his own land and tried to put up a fence. If that was the case, then the appellant-convict should have led evidence in that direction. He should have put specific questions in this regard to the prosecution witnesses more particularly the eyewitnesses who were present at the spot. The appellant-convict has failed to clarify as why he himself and his father vehemently opposed putting up a fence by the deceased. This aspect has not been explained by the appellant-convict even in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. If that be so, then why such hue and cry was raised on the issue of fence.

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 333

V. Subramani and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) 10 SCC 358