2010 (5) Supreme 241
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Sikandar Singh & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Bihar — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2007
Decided on : 9-7-2010
AIR 1959 SC 572; [1964] 8 S.C.R. 133; (2009) 10 SCC 773 – Relied upon
(2001) 10 SCC 284; (2003) 9 SCC 52; (2004) 13 SCC 174; [1962] Supp. 3 SCR 848 – Referred
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 96 to 105 – Right of private defence is a defensive right – It is neither a right of aggression nor of reprisal – The exercise of the right of private defence can never be vindictive or malicious – There is no right of private defence where there is no apprehension of danger – The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger which is not self created – Necessity must be present, real or apparent. (Para 24)
AIR 1963 SC 612; AIR 1988 SC 83; JT 2007 (1) SC 299 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 96 and 100 – Right of self defence should not be construed narrowly because it is a very valuable right and has a social purpose – Accused need not establish the plea of self defence to the hilt and may discharge the onus by showing preponderance of probabilities. (Para 25)
(1971) 3 SCC 244; AIR 1968 SC 702; AIR 1975 SC 1478; AIR 1979 SC 391 – Relied upon
(d) Injuries on the Accused – Injuries being simple and superficial in nature, omission thereof by prosecution not fatal. (Paras 29 and 30)
(2001) 6 SCC 145 – Relied upon
(1976) 4 SCC 394; (2004) 7 SCC 408; (2004) 9 SCC 292; (1990) 3 SCC 190; (2005) 12 SCC 657 – Impliedly distinguished
Facts of the case:
1.The appellants were convicted and sentenced variously for murder of murder of one Upendra Singh.
2.All appeals were dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
1.Courts below correctly applied S. 149, IPC.
Appellants have failed to establish that they were exercising right of private defence.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
D.K. Jain, J. —
1.This criminal appeal, by special leave, arises out of a common judgment and order dated 3rd September 2004, delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in three Criminal Appeals No.268, 284 and 384 of 2001, affirming the judgment and orders dated 7th June 2001 and 12th June 2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, convicting and sentencing the present five appellants for various offences.
2.In all, eight persons, namely, Rajeshwar Singh @ Kamta Singh, Nagina Singh, Sheo Jee Singh @ Akshay Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Sikandar Singh, Harendra Singh, Shankar Singh @ Sheo Shankar Singh and Besh Lal Singh @ Bansh Lal Singh were put on trial for having committed the murder of Upendra Singh. Two of the accused, namely, Nagina Singh and Awadhesh Singh died during the course of the trial and were thus, dropped. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused Rajeshwar Singh under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302; rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 307 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Accused Sheo Jee Singh @ Akshay Singh, Sikandar Singh, Harendra Singh, Shankar Singh @ Sheo Shankar Singh were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 and rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Sheo Jee Singh was further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Accused Besh Lal Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 IPC and Sikandar Singh, Shankar Singh and Harendra Singh were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 147 IPC. The sentences awarded to all the accused were to run concurrently. All the six convicts preferred the afore-noted three appeals. As stated above, by the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed all the appeals. Being aggrieved, Sikandar Singh, Harendra Singh, Shankar Singh, Sheo Jee Singh and Besh Lal Singh have preferred this appeal. Convict Rajeshwar Singh seems to have accepted the verdict of the courts below.
3.Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution may be summarized as follows:
There was a piece of land in front of the cattle shed of the deceased Upendra Singh where his cattle used to graze. There was dispute between the parties over the land and a title suit in respect thereof was pending. In the morning of 23rd December 1987 at about 9-10 a.m., when the deceased was cleaning the said land, accused Rajeshwar Singh happened to reach there and protested against the act of the deceased, saying that the land belonged to him. Ignoring the protest, the deceased continued cleaning the land. Some heated arguments ensued between them. Accused Nagina Singh (since dead), also happened to be at the spot. Having got infuriated and enraged, he exhorted Rajeshwar Singh to eliminate the deceased. Soon thereafter Rajeshwar Singh went to his house and came back with a gun. He was accompanied by Sheo Jee Singh, Awadhesh Singh (since dead), Sikandar Singh, Harendra Singh, Shankar Singh and Besh Lal Singh, all armed with lethal weapons such as spear, farsa and lathi. They exchanged hot and abusive language with the deceased. Accused Rajeshwar Singh fired at the deceased as a result of which he sustained injuries on his chest, abdomen, arm and forearm. In the meantime, Rajendra Singh (PW-4) came there and tried to save his brother Upendra Singh but he was also shot at by Rajeshwar Singh as a result of which he also sustained injuries on his head, forehead and cheek. Upendra Singh, the deceased, succumbed to the injuries and died instantaneously at the spot.
4.Overh
Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab
Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar
Dashrath Singh v. State of U.P.
Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P.
Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra
Laxman Sahu v. State of Orissa
Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration
The State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima
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.