Citing right of private defence, Madras HC acquits 2 in double murder case, Legal News, ET LegalWorld – Legal Firms

MADURAI: Observing that if a man has a real justification to exercise his right of private defence, he cannot be held liable if he slightly exceeds his right, the Madras high court has acquitted two men who were accused in a double murder case in Trichy district in 2015.

The court was hearing the criminal appeal preferred by Durairaj, Madhubalan and Kanagaraj (appellants) challenging the conviction and life sentence imposed by the I additional district and sessions court in Trichy in 2019. Durairaj died during the pendency of the appeal.

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Arumugam and his brother Tirupathi, had murdered Natarajan and Nagarajan who were their relatives, due to previous enmity. There was also a land dispute between the family members of the deceased and that of the appellants.

On May 27, 2015, when the deceased were engaged in putting up a temporary structure, the appellants entered the property, abused the deceased and attacked them indiscriminately, resulting in their death on the spot.

A division bench of justice J Nisha Banu and justice N Anand Venkatesh observed that the deceased started attacking the appellants due to which they sustained injuries. Hence, as a private defence, the appellants attacked the deceased people. In the light of a murderous attack faced by the accused, it cannot be held that they exceeded their right of private defence.

The judges observed, “It is now a settled law that if a man has a real justification to exercise his right of private defence, he cannot be held liable if he slightly exceeds his right of private defence, particularly when he is face to face with a murderous attack, for these things cannot be weighed in golden scales.”

“A person, who is exercising his right of private defence, is not expected to modulate his defence step by step or tier by tier and the court has to look into the overall circumstances and see if the right exercised by the accused is totally disproportionate to the injury sought to be averted,” observed the judges.

In the present case, the witnesses have suppressed the fact that the appellants sustained injuries. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that where the prosecution has suppressed the injuries sustained by the accused, the evidence of the eyewitness itself will become questionable and the accused will be entitled for acquittal on that ground alone, observed the judges.

Hence, the judges set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on Madhubalan and Kanagaraj and acquitted them from all charges.