Madras HC Upholds Life Term For Man Who Stabbed Daughter-In-Law’s Father, Rejecting His Self-Defence Plea

Gopal appealed his convictions under Sections 341, 302 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), arising from the fatal stabbing of Ganesan.

The prosecution alleged that Gopal, who suspected Ganesan of causing his son’s death by sorcery and had disputes with Ganesan’s daughter over property and livestock proceeds, waylaid and stabbed Ganesan in the early hours of 10 February 2019.

Ganesan’s wife, P.W.1, and daughter, P.W.2, identified Gopal as the assailant; he died in hospital the following day.

The trial court imposed life imprisonment for murder and concurrent sentences for the other offences.

On appeal, Gopal challenged the witnesses’ presence, the failure to seize their blood-stained clothes, the non-examination of independent witnesses, and the rejection of his plea of private defence.

The Court applied Sections 341, 302 and 506(ii) IPC to the charged offences and Sections 96–102 IPC to the right of private defence.

Under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the accused bears the burden of establishing a defence such as private defence on a preponderance of probabilities, though that burden may be discharged from the prosecution evidence; the right to cause death under Section 100 IPC requires reasonable grounds to apprehend death or grievous hurt, and the right lasts only while the apprehension continues.

Applying Section 134 of the Evidence Act, the Court reiterated that evidence is assessed by quality, not number, and that reliable related witnesses may sustain a conviction [p. 13; Gulam Sarbar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 3 SCC 401; Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150].

It also relied on the principle that private defence is defensive, not retaliatory, and cannot justify an offensive once the need to defend has passed [pp. 24–25; Shahjahan v. State of Kerala, 2007 AIR SCW 2123].

The Court found P.W.1 and P.W.2’s accounts credible and consistent with the complaint, their statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the medical evidence, and the recovery of the knife; it considered their relationship to the deceased insufficient, by itself, to discredit them.

The evidence that the occurrence took place under street lighting and the prompt reporting also supported the prosecution case.

The Court held that the absence of seized blood-stained clothes and independent eyewitnesses did not undermine otherwise reliable evidence.

It rejected private defence because the appellant had no recorded injuries, the deceased sustained serious stab and cut injuries, and the evidence did not establish a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt that could justify causing death.

It dismissed the appeal, cancelled the appellant’s bail bonds, and directed that he be secured to serve the remaining sentence.

The sentences—including life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC—were to run concurrently.