SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(SC) 196

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A.N. RAY, JJ.
Bansi Lal, Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1968, D/18-3-1971.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Naunit Lal and S. K Nandi, Advocates. for Appellant; Mr. K B. Mehta, Advocate, for Respondent.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 - Offence of Murder - Appeal against conviction - Appeal by special leave - Appellant and his three brothers owned jointly 14 bighas of land as joint family property - had died some 15 or 16 years the occurrence - There was a dispute between appellant and his two brothers and heirs of his deceased brother on question of effecting partition of land About three or four years prior to occurrence and his brother along with one son of their brother had filed a suit against the appellant for partition of land - Deceased and as usual went to field to complete work of putting - When they were at their work, appellant came to field at about 6 P. M. armed with a gun and after threatening them fired a shot against - Shot hit on his chest and he fell down dead -When tried to snatch gun from appellant, latter gave him some blows on his knee and back with barrel of gun - During this scuffle genti which had in his hand hit head of accused - On same evening at about 6.45 P. M., gave a complaint Ex. P. 1 before police – Held, injuries sustained by P. W. 1 and nature of injury sustained by appellant also corroborate original version given by P. W. 1 in Ex. P. 1 - It is no doubt true that evidence of such a witness like P. W. 1 has to be treated with caution, but it is not as if that High Court has merely acted on answers given by him in his chief examination - High Court found in Ex. P. 1, Ex.. P. 7 and Ex. P. 28, as well as evidence of ballistic expert, C. W. 1 - If, these items of evidence are accepted, it is clear that shooting by appellant was intentional and that he had no right of Private defence as injury in his head had been sustained by him not at hands of deceased but at hands of his other brother P. W. 1, after said incident was over - It follows that plea of appellant regarding deceased having sustained injury by gun going off accidentally, is absolutely false – Court do not see any error in approach made by High Court in setting aside order of acquittal - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J,: - This appeal by the accused, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order of the Rajasthan High Court dated August 7, 1968 in D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 1964.

2. The appellant was tried in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1963 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ajmer for an offence under Section 302, I. P. C. for causing the death of his brother Bajrang Lal on July 15, 1962, The Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant by his judgment and order dated January 4, 1964. The State filed an appeal before, the High Court against the decision of the Sessions Judge. The High Court has set aside the order of: acquittal and in turn has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The case of the prosecution was as follows:

3. The appellant and his three brothers Bhanwarlal, Ucchablal and Bajrang Lal owned jointly 14 bighas of land as joint family property. Bhanwarlal had died some 15 or 16 years before the occurrence. There was a dispute between the appellant and his two brothers Ucchablal and Bajranglal and the heirs of his deceased brother Bhanwarlal on the question of effecting partition of the land About three or four years prior to the occurrence Ucchablal and his brother Bajranglal along with one Hiralal son of their brother Bhanwarlal had filed a suit against the appellant for partition of the land. About two or three days prior to the occurrence, deceased Bajranglal and Ucchablal had commenced putting up the Doli enclosing that portion of the land which, according to them represented their shares. On the day of the occurrence i. e., July 15. 1962, at about 3 P. M. the deceased and Ucchablal as usual went to the field to complete the work of putting up the Doli. When they were at their work, the appellant came to the field at about 6 P. M. armed with a gun and after threatening them fired a shot against Bajranglal. The shot hit Bajranglal on his chest and he fell down dead. When Ucchablal tried to snatch the gun from the appellant, the latter gave him some blows on his knee and back with the barrel of the gun. During this scuffle the genti which Ucchablal had in his hand hit the head of the accused. Ucchablal, on the same evening at about 6.45 P. M., gave a complaint Ex. P. 1 before the police. The accused was arrested the next day and the gun Ex. 13 was recovered from him.

4. P. W. 15, Dr. Umed Singh Rathore, who performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased found the following external and internal injuries, described in the post-mortem certificate:

{a) External injuries:

(1) A punched circular wound of size of 1/2"x 1/2" x5" depth with inverted ecchymosed edges placed on the chest left side between 3 and 4 ribs 2" from the midsternal line directed towards back

(2) An oval oblique wound of the size of 1/4"x2/3" with everted and irregular edges on back left side 3" from the middle at the level of the 7th spine.

(b) Internal injuries

(1) 8th rib fractured on left side back with irregular rough and crushed fractured ends. A few pieces of bones weeded in the wound.

(2) Pleura on left side torn with a circular wound.

(3) A circular wound hole in the left lung upper lobe anterior aspect with direction behind. Diameter of the hole 1"

5. P. W. 15 has given evidence to the effect that the cause of death was syncope flue to injury to the left lung by a fire arm. The appellant was also examined by P. W. 15 on the same evening. The appellant had a lacerated wound with irregular and contused borders and bleeding on touching placed vertically on the back of the hand on the occipital region, right side 3 inches from the right mastoid. The size of the injury was stated to be 11/4"x 1/5"x1/3". Ucchablal was also examined on the same day by P. W. 15. He had two contusions, three abrasions and a linear scratch. One abrasion and one contusion was on the back and one abrasion was on the left scapular region and one abrasion was on the left kn














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top