Case – State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup, 1974
Fact
This is a case related to Sabzi Mandi at Badaun, U.P. At about 7 a.m. on June 7, 1970, Ganga Ram is alleged to have gone to the market to purchase a basket of melons. Sahib Datta Mal alias Munim ji (Deceased) declined to sell it, saying he had already marked it for another customer.
Hot words followed, during which Sahib Datta Mal alias Munim ji (Deceased), asserting his authority, said that he was the Thekedar of the market and his word was final. Offended by this show of authority, Ganga Ram is alleged to have left in a huff.
An hour later, Ganga Ram went back to the market with his three sons, Ram Swarup, Somi and Subhash. Ganga Ram had a knife, Ram Swarup had a gun, and the two others carried lathis.
They threw a challenge saying that they wanted to know whose authority prevailed in the market. They advanced aggressively towards the deceased, who, taken by surprise, attempted to rush into a neighboring Kothari. But that was much too late, before he could retreat, Ram Swarup shot him dead at point-blank range.
Issue
Had Ram Swarup caused the death of Munimji in the exercise of Right of Private Defence?
Whether the existence of Right of Private Defence must be proved beyond reasonable doubts?
Contentions & Judgement:
- The Right of Private Defence is available in the face of imminent peril to those who act in good faith and in no case the right be conceded to a person who stage-manages a situation wherein the right can be used as a shield to justify an act of aggression. For example, if a person goes with a gun to kill another, the intended victim is entitled to act in self-defense and if he so acts, there is no right in the former to kill him in order to prevent him from acting in selfdefence.” Evidently the accused went to the market with a preconceived design to pick up a quarrel.
- The burden which rests on the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt is neither neutralised nor shifted because the accused pleads the right of private defence. The prosecution must discharge its initial traditional burden to establish the complicity of the accused, and until it does so, the question whether the accused has acted in self defence or not does not arise.
- Supreme Court said that the right of private defence constitutes a general exception to the offences defined in the Penal Code. The burden which rests on the accused to prove the exception is not of the same rigour as the burden of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. It is enough for the accused to show as in a civil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea.
- The right of private defence is a right of defence, not retribution.
There were following reasons on the basis of which Ram Swarup was convicted for murder:
- Ram Swarup and his father & brothers were aggressors.
- Ram Swarup killed when Munimji was running away.
- Ram Swarup shot him dead at point-blank range.
- Ram Swarup was not able to prove that his matters were covered under “General Exceptions”.
- Right of Private Defence is not available for “stage manager”.
Ram Swarup was convicted for murder under section 302. But his punishment from death sentence (Convicted by Session Court) was converted into life imprisonment.
