SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. AND G.K. MITTER, J.
Sampat Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1967,
D/-7-1-1969.
Advocates appeared
M/s. B. R. Dhawan, B. P. Maurya, P N. Tiwari, Miss Santosh Gupta and Mr. Sobhag Mal Jain, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. K. Baldev Mehta, Advocate, for Respondent.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 302, 324/323/148 and 324/149 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 342 - Right of private defence – Murder - Whether there was evidence to justify the finding that appellant had exceeded his right of private defence in giving two blows with a dagger to one Shyamsingh one of which proved fatal - There was a long-standing enmity between families on other on account of fact that admitted advance amout by Hariram to Achalsingh some years back had not been repaid in spite of numerous demand made from time to time - Houses of Hariram and Achalsingh were situated at a short distance from each other in City of Jodhpur - Held, On evidence trial court did not find that appellant had intention to murder Shyamsingh but he had exceeded the right of private defence of his brother by causing the serious injuries to the deceased - High Court relied on statement of appellant himself before committing court that deceased had caught hold of neck of his brother - On evidence, trial court did not find that appellant had intention to murder Shyamsingh but he had exceeded right of private defence of his brother by causing serious injuries to deceased with Jambia – Hence both courts were justified in coming to conclusion that appellant had exceeded his right of private defence - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
MITTER, J.: The main question involved in this appeal is, whether there was evidence to justify the finding that the appellant had exceeded his right of private defence in giving two blows with a dagger to one Shyamsingh one of which proved fatal.
2. The prosecution case was as follows. There was a long-standing enmity between the families of Achalsingh on the one hand and Hariram and his sons on the other on account of the fact that the admitted advance of Rs. 10,000/- by Hariram to Achalsingh some years back had not been repaid in spite of numerous demand made from time to time. The houses of Hariram and Achalsingh were situated at a short distance from each other in the City of Jodhpur. Hariram had two sons, Rameshwar and Devilal. Rameshwar had been given in adoption to his uncle but the relationship between him and his brother, Devilal continued to be quite cordial. Rameshwar was married to one Ratan Kanwar whose brother Shyamsingh came to lose his life in the way to be narrated hereafter. Achalsingh had two sons, Sampatsingh and Shyamlal. On March 28, 1963, at about 6 p. m. there was a quarrel between Devial on the one hand and Asulal, Sampat Singh, Shyamlal and two friends of theirs, Kishensingh and Uttam Giri on the other. This group of people started abusing Devilal whereupon Rameshwar s wife, Ratan Kanwar tried to intervene and stop the quarrel. The said group who were all accused in the Sessions Case which followed beat both Devilal and Ratan Kanwar. They also took away a golden Jhumri from the right ear of Ratan Kanwar. Eventually people of the locality put an end to this affair. Ratan Kanwar sent messages to her husband Rameshwar and her brother Shyamsingh, deceased. Before Shyamsingh reached the place, all the accused came from the house of Achalsingh to that of Devilal and raised a shout asking the latter to come out. The accused were armed variously, Sampat Singh with a dagger and the others with lathis. Rameshwar who happened to be there tried to close the door of Devilal s house, but the accused managed to get in and dragged Rameshwar out and started beating him. Ratan Kanwar who tried to intervene was also hurt. She received a blow on the head with a dagger of Sampatsingh as also lathi blows from the others. Shyamsingh, the deceased, happened to came on the scene at that hour and the fury of the accused fell upon him. Achalsingh s son, Shyamlal caught hold of Shyamsingh and Sampat Singh, appellant, struck blows with the Jambia on Shyamsingh s thigh and on his back near the waist. People of the neighbourhood like Ambalal (P. W. 14), Nainsingh (P. W. 13), Satyanarain (P. W. 15) and Bhagwandas (P. W. 16) who came in aid of Rameshwar s group were also injured by the accused. Nainsingh, Ambalal and Satyanarain were all injured by the Jambia of Sampat Singh. Thereafter the accused left the place. Shyamsingh, Ratan Kanwar and Ambalal were taken away by Rameshwar to the police station and a first information report was lodged at 8-30 p. m.
3. The injured persons were sent to the hospital and Shyamsingh was admitted as an indoor patient. Dr. Ojha who examined Shyamsingh thought his condition to be critical and arranged for a dying declaration of Shyamsingh to be recorded at 9-25 P. M. Shyamsingh stated that he had been wounded by Sampat Singh by means of a Jambia. The City Magistrate, Jodhpur who came in answer to a summons recorded another dying declaration at 10.50 P. M. The injury report on the person of Shyamsingh by Dr. K. C. Singhal was as follows:
1. Incised wound 1/4 "X 1/2 " muscle deep tapering 2"X 1/10 " below the medical aspect of the right thigh middle part.
2. Incised wound 1 1/2 " X 1/2 " cavity deep on the left lumber region, and
3. Teeth marks elliptical in shape 1 1/2 " in area on the left shoulder. In spite of the operation performed on him Shyam Singh expired on March 31, 1963 at 4 A. M. and the post-mortem was performed on the body by Dr. Har Govind. Dr. Singhal also examined Ratan Kanwar, Am
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.