SELVAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused, who faced the trial for the alleged offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC, got conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 304(II) and 324 IPC, which is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) THE respondent/police, upon complaint and on investigation, came to the conclusion, that the accused/appellant had committed the murder of one Kumar on 23.9.19996 at about 1.15 p.m., by stabbing him, over his chest that when the incident was attempted to be prevented by one Jeyaraman, the accused/appellant also assaulted him, causing simple injury and therefore, he should be dealt with under Sections 302 and 324 IPC. In this way, a final report came to be filed against the accused/appellant.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued only one point before me, to set aside the conviction viz. that the accused/appellant, when attacked the deceased had exercised his right of private defence, not exceeding his jurisdiction, since he entertained a reasonable apprehension, that failure to attack the deceased would be dangerous to his own life and this being the position, as contemplated under Section 96 of the IPC, the act of the accused/appellant is not an offence, since the same is done while exercising the right of private defence. In support of the above submission, my attention was drawn to Exs.D1 and C.1 to C3, in addition, the same case was projected, while examining the prosecution witnesses.