Court finds right of private defence was exceeded, convicts accused under Section 304 Part II and 323 IPC
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has overturned the acquittal of two individuals, Jagat Pal and Harnaam, involved in a 1984 dispute over the installation of a parnala (drainpipe) in Unnao, Uttar Pradesh. The court found that the accused had exceeded their right to private defence, leading to the culpable homicide not amounting to murder of Jamuna Prasad, and inflicted injuries on another individual, Amrit Lal.
The incident occurred on June 15, 1984, when Jamuna Prasad was installing a parnala on his roof, which was opposed by the accused. A heated argument ensued, resulting in the accused using lethal weapons—a lathi and a bhala—against Jamuna Prasad, who later succumbed to his injuries. The trial court had previously acquitted the accused, citing self-defence.
However, the High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, observed that the right to private defence does not permit the use of disproportionate force. The court noted that the injuries on the accused were minor and did not justify the fatal response. The judgment emphasized the necessity for self-defence to be proportionate and reasonable.
The High Court also addressed the prosecution's failure to explain the injuries on accused Harnaam, ruling that such non-explanation is not always fatal, especially when the injuries are minor and the evidence against the accused is cogent and credible.
Convicting Jagat Pal and Harnaam under Section 304 Part II/34 and Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the court has directed the issuance of non-bailable warrants for their arrest. The court will pronounce the sentence on May 11, 2026.
Bottom Line:
Right of private defence does not extend to inflicting more harm than necessary, and the accused cannot claim this defence when disproportionate force is used, resulting in death, especially in trivial disputes.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 96, 99, 100, 304 Part II, 323; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 105; Arms Act, 1959 Section 25
State of U.P. v. Tulsi Ram, (Allahabad)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2892957
