Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
30th July,1962
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
1. Jai Dev (in Cr. A. No. 56 of 62) and 2. Hari Singh (in Cr. A. No. 57 of 62) Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab (in both the Appeals), Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 56 and 57 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Frank Anthony, Ghanshiam and P. C. Agarwala, Advocates, for Appellants (in both Appeals.); Mr. N. S. Bindra Senior Advocate and Mr. Kartar Singh, Assistant Advocate General for the State of Punjab (Mr. P. D. Menon Advocate with them) for Respondent (in both appeals).
MURDER - RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE - S. 148, Ss. 302 and 326 both read with S. 149 - S. 100 of the Indian Penal Code - The judgment discusses the right of private defence, the circumstances under which it can be exercised, and the limitations on its use. The court analyzes the events leading to the commission of the offence, the nature and extent of the threat, and the applicability of the right of private defence. The judgment also highlights the legal principles governing the exercise of the right of private defence and its application to the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a tragic and gruesome culmination of a battle for possession of land between the appellants and the faction of the complainants. The prosecution alleged that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and committed offences including murder and assault. The defence claimed that the accused were engaged in lawful ploughing of the land and acted in self-defence when attacked by a large group of villagers armed with deadly weapons.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court differed from the trial Court's view on possession of the land and the exercise of the right of private defence. It held that the appellants were guilty of murder under Section 302, as the right of private defence had ceased to exist at the time of the shootings. The conviction was confirmed, but the sentence of death was reduced to imprisonment for life.
Issues: The key issues included the possession of the land, the exercise of the right of private defence, and the circumstances leading to the commission of the offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment establishes the legal principles governing the right of private defence, including the circumstances under which it can be exercised and the limitations on its use. It also emphasizes the importance of considering the background of the incident, the nature and extent of the threat, and the excitement caused at the time of the offence in determining the appropriate sentence.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR , J. : The two appellants Jai Dev and Hari Singh along with four others Yudhbir Singh, Dhanpat Singh, Sajian Singh & Parbhati were charged with having committed offences under S. 148 and Ss. 302 and 326 both read with S. 149. The case against them was that on September 14. 1960, they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in the area of Dhani Khord and that the common object of this unlawful assembly was to commit the offence of rioting while armed with deadly weapons and that in pursuance of the said common object the offence of rioting was committed. That is how the charge under Section 148 was framed. The prosecution further alleged that on the same day and at the same time and place, while the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly, they had another common object of committing the murders of Hukma, Jai Narain, Jai Dev, Amin Lal, Mst. Sagroli and Mst. Dil Kaur and that in pursuance of the said common object the said persons were murdered. Dhanpat Singh killed Hukma, Sajjan Singh attacked Hukma. Yudhbir Singh shot at Amin Lal, Jai Dev shot at Mst. Sagroli and victim Jaidev, and Hari Singh shot at Jai Narain and Parbhati killed Mst. Dil Kaur. It is the murder of these six victims which gave rise to the charge against the six accused persons under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. An assault made by the members of the said assembly on Ram chander, Juglal, Mst. Chand Kaur. Sirya, Murti and Murli gave rise to a similar charge under Section 326/149. At the same trial along with these six persons, Basti Ram was tried on the charge that he had abetted the commission of the offence of murder by the members of the unlawful assembly and thus rendered himself liable to be punished under Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code. The case against these seven accused persons was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. He held that the charges against Parbhati and Basti Ram had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt; so he acquitted both the said accused persons. In respect of the remaining five accused persons, the learned Judge held that all the three charges framed against them had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. For the offence of murder, the learned Judge directed that all the five should be hanged; for the offence under Section 326/149 he sentenced each one of them to two years rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 148 he sentenced each one to suffer R.I. for one year, These two latter sentences were ordered to run concurrently and that too if the death penalty imposed on them was not confirmed by the High Court.
2. Against this order of conviction and sentence, there appeals were preferred on be half of the five condemned persons. The sentence of death imposed on them were also submitted for confirmation. The Punjab High Court dealt with the confirmation proceedings and the three appeals together and held that the conviction of Yudhbir Singh Dhanpat Singh and Sajjan Singh was not justified and so, the said order of conviction was set aside and consequently, they were ordered to be acquitted and discharged. In regard to Jai Dev and Hari Singh the High Court differed from the view taken by the trial Court and held that they were guilty not under Section 302/149 but only under Section 302 I.P.C. In the result, the appeals preferred by them were dismissed and their conviction for the offence of murder and the sentence of death imposed on them were confirmed. It is this order which is challenged by the two appellants before us in their appeals Nos. 56 and 57 of 1962. These two appeals have been brought to this Court by special leave.
3. The incident which has given rise to the present criminal proceedings occurred in Khasra No. 888 in Mauza Ahrod known as Inamwala field on September 14,1960, at about 10-30 A.M. This incident has led to the death of six persons already mentioned as well as the death of Ram Pat who belonged to the faction of the appell
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
