Causing disproportionate harm to attacker while defending oneself amounts to culpable homicide: SC

The apex court has described the right to self-defence as a “very valuable right” with a “social purpose”.

Photo for representational purpose.

Use of fatal force or causing disproportionate harm to overpower an aggressor in self-defence amounts to culpable homicide and not murder, the Supreme Court has held.

A Bench of Justices N.V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar reiterated in a recent judgment that the “law on the aspect of causing disproportionate harm and exceeding right to private defence is amply clear. In cases of disproportionate harm leading to death of the aggressor, sentence under Section 304 Part I (of the Indian Penal Code) is the appropriate sentence”. This provision deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Self-defence is one of the exceptions to the offence of murder defined in Section 300 of the Code. The apex court has described the right to self-defence as a “very valuable right” with a “social purpose”.

However, a retaliation that overwhelms the imminent threat posed by the aggressor, though done in self-defence, amounts to a crime in itself.

Judgment comes in 1991 case

The judgment came in a case dating back to 1991 concerning a fatal quarrel between two Punjab Home Guard volunteers over the repayment of a loan of ₹100.

Jangir Singh, who moved the Supreme Court, shot dead his colleague Jaswant Singh in the chest with his service rifle. The latter had asked him to return him the loan. Feeling humiliated by the fact that Jaswant asked him for the money in front of others, Jangir shot dead Jaswant after an altercation that lasted well over a quarter of an hour. Witnesses pointed out that it was a case of who would pull the trigger first. They said Jangir was under an “imminent threat” of being shot himself.

The trial court acquitted Jangir in 1993 for acting in self-defence but the Punjab and Haryana High Court found him guilty for murder and offences under the Arms Act.

Twenty-seven years after the incident, the Supreme Court finally provided quietus to the case by concluding that though Jangir’s act could be classified as self-defence, he caused a disproportionate harm by shooting his friend in the chest.

“The accused could have avoided the vital part of the deceased,” it concluded.

The court ordered the immediate release of Jangir, who has already spent over a decade in prison.

The maximum prison sentence for culpable homicide is 10 years.