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

1994 Supreme(SC) 78

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Jayachandra Reddy & C.N. Ray, JJ.
State of U.P. - Appellant
versus
Mukunde Singh & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 232/83,
with 233/83 373/82
Decided on 18.1.1994
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellant - P. Pandey & A.S. Pundir, Advocates.
For the Respondents - Magan Bhai Barot, Advocate.

Advocates:
A.S.PUNDIR, ASHUTOSH BHATTACHERJI, LALITA KAUSHIK, MAGANBHAI R.BAROT, MANOJ SVARUP, P.PANDEY, P.PARMESHVARAN

IMPORTANT POINT
When three of the prosecution party died due to gun shot and punctured wounds at the hands of accused and the injuries received by accused were of simple nature caused by blunt object then this is a case of right of private defence exceeded.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148/302/149,307/149 & 201 - Accused, twenty in number armed with gun, rifle, kantas, spear and lathis surrounded the prosecution party Three persons from prosecution side died two received injuries - Acquittal granted by High Court on the ground that injuries on some of the accused were not explained and that accused acted in self defence - Injuries on accused persons not of serious nature and could have been caused by blunt objects - Question that accused exceeded the right of private defence not properly examined as three persons died due to gun shot injuries and punctured wounds - Accused responsible for these injuries are liable to be convicted u/s. 304, Part 1, I.P.C. Allegations against remaining 17 accused of omnibus nature and no lathi injury found on either deceased or on any witness - Their acquittal calls for no interference. (Paras 5 & 6)

       

JUDGMENT

K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. - Criminal Appeal Nos. 232/83 and 233/83 by the State and Criminal Appeal No. 373/82 by the complainant are filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in which the convictions awarded against the respondents-accused by the trial court have been set aside. All the 22 respondents-accused before us were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,3021149, 307/149 and 201, I.P.C. It is alleged that all these accused formed into an unlawful assembly and committed the murder of three persons Dinesh. Singh, Mahesh Singh and Sirmaur Singh on 4.8.1975 in Village Badera and also caused injuries to Ram Dayal, P.W. 1 and Ramesh Singh, P.W. 2 and removed the dead bodies from the place of occurrence to the house of Shiv Vir Singh, accused. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2,3 and 5, the eye-witnesses and the trial court accepting their evidence convicted all the 22 accused persons under sections 302/149, I.P.C. and also for other offences and sentenced them accordingly. The convicted accused preferred appeals to the High Court and the High Court acquitted all of them holding that some of the accused persons were also injured during the same occurrence and therefore they had the right of private defence and that they did not exceed the same in causing the death of the three deceased persons.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the complainant-appellant challenged the order of acquittal passed by the High Court on a number of grounds. It is submitted that the eyewitnesses are natural witnesses and that the presence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 the injured witnesses at any rate cannot be disputed and the fact that three persons were killed by gun-shot injuries as well as by the injuries inflicted with sharp-edged weapons, would go to show that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit the murder and that the trial court rightly convicted them and that the High Court in a cryptic manner acquitted all of them and. that at any rate even if the accused had the right of self defence they have clearly exceeded the same.

3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

All the accused persons, the deceased persons and the material witnesses belong to Village Badem and some of them are inter-related to each other. One Baijnath sold six Bighas of land situated at Village Sikrodi from the joint khata of P.W. 1 and his brothers to one Narsinghde Singh and the sons of Man Singh. The said land, however, was not mutated in favor of the vendees till the occurrence. P.W. 1 filed an objection for issue of Bhumidhari Sanad in respect of the said land, which was rejected by the Tehsildar. Ram Dayal, P.W. 1 filed an appeal which was dismissed and a further revision filed by him before the Commissioner was pending. However, Narasinghde Singh and the sons of Man Singh could not obtain possession of the land. A Panchayat was held at the instance of the villagers and it was decided that vendees would not cultivate the land and the same would be cultivated on Batai. It was accordingly cultivated for two years and in the third year the vendees cultivated a portion of the land and the remaining land was cultivated by P.W. 1 which was not liked by the vendees. On 4.8.1975 at about 9 A.M. when P.W. 1 was at his house and when his brother P.W. 2 also was there all the accused came there and abused them saying that they would upturn the crop sown by P.W. 1. Soon thereafter Jhaman Singh, Shiv Pal Singh two deceased persons Sirmaur Singh and Mahesh Singh and other villagers came there and the two deceased persons told the accused that they were the first to disobey the decision of the Panchayat. However, at that time no fight took place. At about 12 Noon on the same day while P.Ws. 1 and 2nd the three deceased persons were going to lodge a report at Police Station Ajitmal regarding the aforesaid incident and had reached near the house of Chhotey Singh in Village Pareda all the ac







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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top