Private defence ends when immediate danger ceases; murder conviction stood, but the death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court reiterated that the right of private defence exists only while a real and immediate threat continues; once the assailants have dispersed or fled, retaliatory force is no longer protected. On the accepted facts, the victims were shot from a distance after the crowd had begun to run away, so the appellants could not invoke private defence and their murder conviction was maintained. The Court nevertheless treated the surrounding property dispute, confrontation, crowd situation, and heat of the occurrence as mitigating factors. For that reason, the sentence of death was reduced to life imprisonment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellants could claim the right of private defence when they fired at victims who were at a distance after the assailing crowd had dispersed, and (ii) whether the sentence of death required interference and reduction.

Issue (i): whether the appellants could claim the right of private defence when they fired at victims who were at a distance after the assailing crowd had dispersed.

Analysis: The right of private defence permits the use of necessary force, even to the extent of causing death in the circumstances recognised by law, but it exists only so long as a real and immediate threat continues. Once the danger has ceased or the assailants have been put to flight, the right ends and cannot justify retaliatory force. On the facts accepted by the Court, the two victims were shot from considerable distances after the crowd had already begun to run away and there was no continuing threat to person or property. The appellants therefore could not rely on private defence, nor could their conduct be treated as a mere excess of that right.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the protection of private defence and their conviction for murder was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the sentence of death required interference and reduction.

Analysis: Although the appellants were found guilty of murder, the Court treated the surrounding confrontation, the property dispute, the crowd situation, and the heat of the incident as relevant to sentence. The Court held that, even though the right of private defence had ended by the time of the fatal shots, the background of the occurrence furnished sufficient mitigating circumstances to justify interference with the extreme penalty.

Conclusion: The sentence of death was reduced to imprisonment for life.

Final Conclusion: The conviction under section 302 was maintained, but the punishment was moderated from death to life imprisonment in view of the special circumstances attending the occurrence.

Ratio Decidendi: The right of private defence cannot be invoked once the immediate threat has ceased, and a conviction for murder may stand even where the death penalty is reduced on mitigating circumstances arising from the surrounding facts.

---