Free Download

When Does Exceeding Private Defence Become Murder?

09-04-2025 09:38:30 | APS Judicial Academy

Ratheeshkumar @ Babu v. The State of Kerala & Anr. (2025) SC
Timeline of Key Events

• 2007 – Ratheeshkumar @ Babu allegedly murdered his neighbour during a property dispute over a fence.
• 2012 – The trial court convicted Ratheeshkumar based on four eyewitnesses and forensic evidence, sentencing him to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, while acquitting his father.
• 2012 – Ratheeshkumar filed an appeal against his conviction in High Court, shortly after the trial court judgment.
• 2017 – The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction after reviewing the evidence.
• 2017 – Ratheeshkumar filed an appeal, challenging the conviction and claiming private defence under Sections 96-106 IPC or exceptions to Section 300 IPC, which was decided by the Supreme Court in 2025.

• Whether Ratheeshkumar’s actions constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or if they fell under the right of private defence under Sections 96 to 106 IPC.
• Specifically, the court examined whether the appellant exceeded the right of private defence by causing the death of the deceased.?

Supreme Court’s Ruling

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court and trial court’s judgment convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC for murder.

Key Reasoning

• The Supreme Court’s reasoning was grounded in several legal principles and factual findings:

1. Lack of Reasonable Apprehension: The Court found no evidence of a reasonable apprehension of death, grievous hurt, or imminent danger to the appellant’s property that would justify the use of deadly force. The deceased was unarmed and only engaged in putting up a fence on his own land.
2. Disproportionate Force: The appellant’s use of a knife to stab the deceased twice and subsequent beating with a wooden bar after the deceased had fallen was deemed excessive and not necessary for self-defence or defence of property. This indicated an intention to inflict harm rather than merely protect.
3. No Good Faith or Lack of Premeditation: The Court rejected the appellant’s claim under Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC, as there was no good faith (due care and attention) in his actions, and the fact that he arrived at the scene already armed with a knife suggested some level of premeditation, undermining his defence.
4. Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC Rejected: The argument that the act was spontaneous and in the heat of passion was dismissed because the appellant took undue advantage and acted in a cruel manner by attacking an unarmed person, disqualifying it from Exception 4.
5. Burden of Proof: Under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden was on the appellant to prove circumstances justifying exceptions, which he failed to do, as required by precedents like K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra.

Precedents Relied Upon
The Supreme Court referred to several precedents to support its reasoning on the right of private defence and exceptions to murder:

• Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 2 SCC 333: Outlined principles of private defence, emphasizing that self-preservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognised by the criminal jurisprudence. The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger and not of self-creation. However, the force used must not be disproportionate and must be in response to a reasonable apprehension of danger.
• Furthermore, it is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self-defence, it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record. The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. The Court applied these principles to conclude that the appellant’s actions exceeded permissible limits.

• V. Subramani and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 10 SCC 358: Stressed that self-defence should be judged from the accused’s subjective perspective at the time of the incident, who in the surrounding excitement and confusion of the moment, was confronted with a situation of peril and not by any microscopic and pedantic scrutiny.
• However, the Court found no basis for such a defence here, given the continued assault after the initial injury. This reveals a shift in the accused’s intention from protecting himself & his property to inflicting harm and wrecking vengeance upon the deceased.

• K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605): Clarified the burden of proof under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, stating that the accused must rebut the presumption against exceptions, which the appellant failed to do. The court shall regard the non-existence of such circumstances as proved till they are disproved. But the Section does not in any way affect the burden that lies on the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the offence with which the accused is charged.
• Munshi Ram & Others v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1968 SC 702): It is well settled that even if an accused does not plead self-defence, it is open to the court to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record.

• Download: