1. Assault resulting in death — Dispute over irrigation — Trial for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 266
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C.Shah : J.R.Mudholkar : Syed Jafar Imam
Narain Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : 218 of 1959
Date of Decision : 8/21/62
Advocates Appeared: Agarwala K.G. : Agarwala P.C. : Anthony Frank : Khanna H.K. : Menon P.D.
Advocates:
FRANK ANTHONY, H.K.Khanna, K.C.AGARWALA, P.C.AGRAWAL, P.D.MENON
FRANK ANTHONY, H.K.Khanna, K.C.AGARWALA, P.C.AGRAWAL, P.D.MENON
A statement under Section 342 CrPC must be considered in its entirety; courts cannot dissect it to use admissions while ignoring explanations. The burden to prove a general exception under the IPC arises only if the prosecution first establishes a prima facie case of guilt.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 342 - Examination of accused - Statement of accused to be considered in its entirety - If the accused, in explaining circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, sets up his own version and pleads that he has committed no offence, the statement can only be taken into consideration in its entirety - It is not open to the Court to dissect the statement and pick out a part which may be incriminative while ignoring the explanation furnished by the accused for his conduct. (Para 8)
(B) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 304 Part II - Right of private defence - Burden of proof - Where an accused sets up a plea that he is protected by one of the exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, the burden of proving the exception lies upon him, but this burden is only undertaken if the prosecution case establishes that in the absence of such a plea, the accused would be guilty of the offence charged. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
A dispute over the diversion of water for irrigation led to an assault resulting in the death of the victim. The prosecution alleged that the accused and his relatives attacked the victim with various weapons. The trial court and the High Court found the prosecution's evidence, including the dying declarations, to be unreliable. However, relying on the statement made by the accused during his examination, the lower courts held that the accused had caused the injuries while exceeding the right of self-defence and convicted him under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to establish by reliable evidence that the accused had committed any act that rendered him liable for the offence. The conviction was erroneously based on a dissected version of the accused's own statement, ignoring the composite nature of the plea of self-defence.
Issues: Whether a conviction can be sustained based on a statement made under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the prosecution's case fails and the accused's admission of an act is coupled with a plea of justification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be dissected to use admissions against the accused while divorcing them from the accompanying explanation. Furthermore, the burden to prove a general exception under the Indian Penal Code only shifts to the accused once the prosecution has established a prima facie case of guilt through reliable evidence.
Result: Appellant acquitted of the offence under s. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Prosecution alleged common intention to murder — Accused pleaded right of private defense of person against attempted strangulation. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Prosecution evidence was unreliable — Conviction based on dissecting the accused's statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, while ignoring the accompanying explanation. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 )
4. Statement under Section 342, CrPC must be considered in entirety; admission of facts cannot be divorced from the explanation provided by the accused. (Para 8 )
5. Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, and sentence set aside. (Para 1 , 10 )
6. How should a court treat a statement made by an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
The statement must be taken into consideration in its entirety. The court cannot dissect the statement to extract incriminative admissions while ignoring the explanation provided by the accused for his conduct. (Para 8 )
7. When does the burden of proving a general exception under the Indian Penal Code shift to the accused?
The burden of proving an exception lies with the accused only if the prosecution case establishes, through reliable evidence, that the accused would be guilty of the offence in the absence of such a plea. (Para 9 )
8. Does the right of private defense of the person extend to causing death in cases of attempted strangulation?
Yes, if a person reasonably apprehends that their assailant is attempting to strangulate them, the exercise of the right of private defense of the person extends to causing the death of the assailant. (Para 9 )
J.C.SHAH, J.
(1) AFTER arguments were concluded in this appeal we ordered that the appellant Narain Singh be acquitted of the offence under s. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code of which he wag convicted and the sentence passed on him be set aside. We proceed to set out our reasons in support of the order.
(2) NARAIN Singh and his three nephewsMehar Singh, Mewa Singh and Pakhar Singhwere tried before the Court of Session, Ludhiana for offences punishable under s. 302 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the charge that on October 31, 1958, they had in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of one Bachan Singh by making a murderous assault on him.
(3) THE prosecution case was that in the evening of October 31, 1958, when Narain Singh and his three nephews were irrigating their field, Bachan Singh diverted the flow of water into his own filed. Narain Singh and his nephews were thereupon enraged, and there was a quarrel between them and Baohan Singh. Narain Singh and his nephews made an attack upon Bachan Singh and caused him serious injuries. According to the prosecution, Mehar Singh at the time of the assault was armed with a spear, Pakhar Singh with a Kaholi, Mewa Singh with a salang and Narain Singh with a stick. A complaint was lodged about the assault with the police, and Bachan Singh was removed to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. The Sub-Inspector of Police investigating the case recorded the statement of Bachan Singh, and a First Class Magistrate of Ludhiana recorded his declaration on the evening of November 2, 1958. Bachan Singh died on November 3, 1958.
(4) NARAIN Singh and his nephwes were then prosecuted before the Court of Session Ludhiana for the offence of murder. At the trial, Narain Singh pleaded that he had acted in exercise of the right of self defence and had caused injuries to Bachan Singh because the latter had thrown him down and had attempted to strangulate him. His statement in the Court of Session, on which he was convicted, was as follows :-
"THE correct facts are that when I objected to the deceased cutting the nakka he caught hold of me and threw me on the ground. I was alone at the time. The other three co-accused were not with me. After I had fallen on the ground the deceased attempted to strangulate me. I was then wearing small kirpan. I unsheathed it and used it in self defence causing a couple of injuries to the deceased on the alarm raised by me, Mehar Singh (my co-accused) who was coming from the khal nearby, came to the spot and rescued me. He was armless and did not cause any injury to the deceased. I did not carry any stick but was wearing a small kirpan as usual."
(5) PAKHAR Singh and Mewa Singh denied their presence at the scene of offence. Mehar Singh claimed that he was present at the scene, and he had tried to intervene and separate Baohan Singh and Narain Singh. Narain Singh and Mehar Singh relied upon the circumstance that they also had injuries on their person which were noticed when they were medically examined. Narain Singh had six contused injuries and Mehr Singh had one incised injury and four abraded contusions. Before the Court of Session, Jagir Singha witness for the prosecution made important variations in his story as originally related by him in his complaint at the police station. Kaka, who, it was claimed by the prosecution, was an eye-witness, did not support the case for the prosecution. Hakku, another witness, was Dot examined by the prosecutor, but was merely tendered for cross-examination". One Johri whose name was not mentioned in the complaint was also examined by the prosecutor. Two statements of Bachan Singh which were in view of his death admissible as dying declarationsone recorded by the Investigating Officer and the other by the First Class Magistrate, Ludhianawere also tendered in evidence. The Sessions Judge held that the evidence of Jagir Singh was unreliable and that Johri could not
