JAMES MARITIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Self-preservation is the prime instinct of every human being. The right of private defence is a recognized right in the criminal law. Therefore,96 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) provides that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. The question is, as happens in many cases, where exercise of such rights is claimed, whether the "Lakshman Rekha", applicable its exercise has been exceeded.99 IPC delineates the extent which the right may be exercised.

(2.) The claim was made by the accused in the following background: Appellant-James Martin faced trial along with his father-Xavier for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324 read with34 and326 read with114 IPC and Sections 25(b)(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the Act) and Sections 27 and 30 thereof. Learned Sessions Judge, N. Paravur, found the present appellant (A-1) guilty of offences punishable under304 Part I, 326 and 324 IPC, while the other accused was found guilty of the offences punishable under304 Part I read with34, 326 read with Sections 34, 324 IPC. Both the accused persons were sentenced undergo imprisonment for 7 years and for the second offence, 2 years RI and fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default stipulation of 1 year sentence. It was directed that in case fine was realized it was be paid (PW-3). Each of the accused was also undergo sentence RI for 1 year for the offence punishable under324 IPC and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation of 6 months sentence. The fine, if any on realisation, was directed be paid PW-7 and PW-8. The fine was directed be paid (PW-8). The sentences were directed run concurrently.

(3.) A-2 also filed a complaint against 24 persons, which was tried as S.C. No. 74 of 1991. In the said case some of the PWs and their supporters were the accused. State had launched prosecution against 12 of the said 24 persons. The same as tried as S.C. No. 57 1990.