1. Assault and killing of three persons and injury to others in a public bus — Claim of private defense — Appeal against acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1993 Supreme(SC) 830
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Jayachandra Reddy and GN. Ray, JJ.
State of Karnataka - Petitioner
versus
Jinappa Payappa Kudachi & Ors. - Respondents
Cri. Appeal No. 445 of 1982
Decided on 21.9.1993
Advocates:
A.B.MATHUR, B.Janardhan, J.D.JAIN, K.K.Kocher, M.VIRAPPA, NOBIN SINGH, P.D.Jain
A.B.MATHUR, B.Janardhan, J.D.JAIN, K.K.Kocher, M.VIRAPPA, NOBIN SINGH, P.D.Jain
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
In considering the question whether the accused exceeded the right of private defence, the court has to consider the part played by the accused persons, gravity of the offences committed and the nature of the attack made by them.
In considering the question whether the accused exceeded the right of private defence, the court has to consider the part played by the accused persons, gravity of the offences committed and the nature of the attack made by them.
Subject
Criminal Law - Right of Private Defence
Act Referred
Headnote
Penal Code, 1860, sec. 100-right of private defence-evidence conclusively establishing the participation of the accused in the occurrence which occurred in a bus-trial court convicting the accused for life and on various other terms-High Court accepting the findings of the trial court but held that the accused had a right of private defence and acquitted them and also pointed out that injuries sustained by the accused were not explained-the effect of non-explanation about the injuries on the accused persons depends on the facts and circumstances of each case-accused were in larger number and at any rate even accepting they had right of private defence but having regard to the fact that they attacked three deceased inflicting a number of injuries including fire arm injuries and also on other PWs, it would show that they have certainly exceeded the right of self defence-in any event the right does not extend to the extent of causing death of three persons and inflicting so many injuries on them as well as on the witnesses-as the accused also suffered injuries they were convicted u/s 304 part I and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years in the ends of justice. (Paras 6, 7 & 8)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State contends accused were aggressors; Defense argues prosecution's failure to explain injuries on accused entitles them to acquittal or benefit of private defense. (Para 5 )
3. The severity and number of injuries inflicted on the deceased and witnesses, compared to the simple injuries on the accused, indicate the right of private defense was exceeded. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. The right of private defense is exceeded when the force used is disproportionate to the apprehension of danger, evaluated by the gravity of offenses and nature of attack. (Para 7 )
5. Acquittal set aside; respondents convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment. (Para 8 )
6. What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to explain injuries sustained by the accused?
The effect depends on the facts of each case. While it may suggest the accused acted in private defense or that the prosecution suppressed the genesis of the occurrence, it does not automatically lead to acquittal if other evidence establishes participation. (Para 6 )
7. How is it determined whether an accused has exceeded the right of private defense?
The court considers the part played by the accused, the gravity of the offenses committed, and the nature of the attack made by them to determine if the force used was disproportionate to the threat. (Para 7 )
8. Does the location of an incident influence the assessment of a reasonable apprehension of danger?
Yes; an occurrence in a public place, such as a bus with many passengers, may diminish the reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, making the killing of multiple persons unjustified under the right of private defense. (Para 7 )
ORDER
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. - This appeal by the State of Karnataka is filed against the ORDER of the Karnataka High Court questioning the acquittal of the six respondents-accused (original Accused nos. 1 to 6). They alongwith eight others tried for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149,337/149 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court while acquitting the others convicted the respondents under Sections 148,302/ 149326/149,324/149 and 337/149 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and various other terms of imprisonment for the other minor offences. A-3 alone was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo three years R -1 and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of which suffer R.I. for three months. The sentences were directed to run con 541 currently. The six convicted accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 174/78 and the State of Karnataka filed an appeal questioning the acquittal of the other accused and also filed another appeal for enhancement of the sentence of the six respondents-accused. The High Court dismissed the two appeals filed by the State and allowed the appeal flied by the six convicted accused. The state has come forward with the present appeal against the said order of acquittal.
2. The prosecution case is as follows.
A-1 to A-13 are the residents of Bastwad village and A-14 is the resident of Patagwudni village. A-1 and A-10 and A-11 are full brothers and they have been living separately. They had another brother Namanna who was subsequently murdered six months prior to the present incident. The other accused are related to each other. The three deceased persons in this case namely Babu Kallappa Kasal (D-1), Yallappa Devappa Kasal (D-2) and Paris Adappa Kamal (D-3) were cousin brothers and were living separately. P.W. 1 is the father of P.Ws. 4 and 5 and P.Ws. 1 and 2 belong to the party of the d-1. One Kulasambi filed a suit against her daughter-in-law Chutibi and Kallappa, father of D-1 for partition of some land. The said Kallappa was helping Chutibi and was cultivating her land as tenant. After his death, D-1 purchased 19 guntas of the said land from Chutibi and was also granted occupancy rights in respect of the remaining land. After his fathers death, D1 was helping Chutibi in the litigation and the deceased Nemanna, brother of A-1 was helping Kulasumbi, the opposite party in the said litigation.
3. About six months prior to the present incident, Namenna was murdered. His son A-6 filed a complaint to the police against D-1 and D2, P.W. 3 and five others. Yallappa, D-2 and one Paris Bhima Pathani were arrested. Since the police failed to iIe the charge-sheet, they were released by the Magistrate on bail, and they returned to the village to about two months prior to the incident. Thus, there was ill-feelings and bitter enmity between the two groups. On the day of the incident namely 25.9.1978 in the morning the three deceased persons. P.Ws. 1 and 2 left Bastwad at 7 A.M. by bus for Belgaum to meet their advocate. They reached Belgaum by 8 A.M. P.W. 3 and one Sawant also got down from the bus and they went to Belgaum city for their own work. The three deceased persons and P.W. 1 and 2 then met their advocate. They returned to the bus-stop to catch the bus to go to Bastwad. They were waiting at the bus-stop. Meanwhile, accused nos. 2, 6, 7 and 8 went to the bus-stop each holding a satchel. At about 12.15 P.M. a bus came. P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the three deceased persons boarded the bus and set on the seats. Accused nos. 2, 6, 7 and 8 stood near the entrance after getting into the bus. On the way, the bus stopped at Fort bus-stand. There accused nos. 1, 3,4 and 5 boarded the bus. There were also holding a satchel each. The capacity of the bus was 39 passengers and about 20 to 30 passengers were standing. The bus stopped at a few stops. Thereafter, it stopped near Bastwad cross for the passengers going to Kondaskoppa to get down. Some of them got down
