The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging the conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellants, involved in a violent altercation over a property dispute, were convicted for the brutal killing of Mahadevappa, a neighbor. The appellants claimed self-defense, but the court rejected this defense, finding that the attack was not provoked and the force used was disproportionate. The court upheld the life sentence imposed by the Karnataka High Court and the trial court.

Background of the Incident

• The dispute arose over a blockage of a path by firewood on February 17, 2009.
• Sangeeta, the complainant, confronted her uncle Subhash and his family about the blocked path. This led to verbal abuse by Subhash’s family.
• On the following day, February 18, 2009, Mahadevappa (Sangeeta's father) confronted Subhash about the incident, leading to a violent altercation.

The Attack

• Appellant No. 1 (Subhash) struck Mahadevappa on the head with a stick.
• Appellant No. 2 (Dattatrey) attacked Mahadevappa with a chopper (koita) on his head, causing grievous injuries.
• Appellant No. 3 (Digambar) threw stones at Mahadevappa, hitting him in the face and below the knee.
• Mahadevappa was later declared dead due to multiple injuries and fractures.

Trial and Conviction

• The Sessions Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 (murder), Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 326 (causing grievous hurt) of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.
• The Karnataka High Court upheld the conviction.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

• The appellants claimed they acted in self-defense, as Mahadevappa had come to their house and provoked them.
• The prosecution presented 31 witnesses, including eyewitnesses Sangeeta, Sharanappa, and medical experts.
• The court found no provocation from Mahadevappa and ruled that the attack was disproportionate and premeditated.

Acts and Sections Discussed

• Section 302, IPC – Punishment for murder.
• Section 324, IPC – Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 326, IPC – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 149, IPC – Unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in prosecution of common object.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the appellants could not claim the right of private defense, as Mahadevappa was unarmed and the force used by the appellants was excessive and unjustified. The evidence proved that the appellants intended to cause grievous harm, leading to Mahadevappa’s death. Therefore, the offense fell squarely under Section 302 IPC.

The right to private defense cannot be invoked when the accused uses disproportionate force or when the confrontation is self-created. The attack by the appellants was premeditated and malicious, rather than a reaction to a sudden provocation.