2016 Supreme(SC) 647

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, Arun Mishra, JJ.
Brij Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 991 OF 2010
Decided On : 17-08-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
When the accused fired at an unarmed crowd comprised of men, women and children standing at a distance of 20 feet in which one of the deceased was a woman and one of the injured was a child, plea of self defence would not be acceptable.
When the accused, by indiscriminate firing kills a woman among others, plea that he had no animosity with deceased cannot be accepted.
When the accused admits firing at the crowd and the weapon is recovered at his instance, he cannot contend that the weapon was not recovered from him.
Acquittal of co-accused in a separate trial cannot be a ground for acquittal.
Trial court overlooking vital evidence specially those brought out in cross-examination and acquitting the accused. High Court relying on cogent evidence can reverse the order of acquittal.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 96 – Right of self defence – Crowd comprising of men, women and children gathered at place of occurrence unarmed – Everybody in the crowd only persuading accused-appellant and his co-accused not to insist on murdering Mohan Lal – Crowd standing at substantial distance from accused-appellant and co-accused – One of deceased a woman and one of injured a child – Plea of self defence not acceptable. (Para 15, 17, 21)

       (1992) 2 SCC 406; (1991) 2 SCC 612 – Distinguished

       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Plea of no animosity with deceased – Accused-appellant and co-accused angered by crowd trying to save Mohan Lal by dissuading them from killing him firing at the crowd indiscriminately – Contention based on motive rejected. (Para 18)

       (c) Criminal trial – Recovery – Accused-appellant admitting having fired at crowd – Gun recovered at his instance – Recovery substantiated – Signature of accused persons on ‘mazhar’ – Contention that weapon was not recovered from the appellant – Rejected. (Para 19)

       (d) Criminal trial – Acquittal of co-accused – Tried separately – Witnesses resiled – Such a case not with accused-appellant – Instantly prosecution proving its case – Acquittal of co-accused in separate trial not material. (Para 20)

       (e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – High Court relying upon cogent evidence – Trial court overlooking vital evidence specially brought out in cross-examination – No question of extending benefit of any doubt to accused-appellant. (Para 24)

       (2010) 13 SCC 657 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       Brij Lal, the appellant and one Mohan Lal were colleagues in Irrigation Deptt. and were living in government accommodation. Being fed up by abuses hurled by Brij Lal, Mohan Lal left the government accommodation and rented the premises of one Mohan Ram.

       On 30.9.1983 at around 9 p.m., Brij Lal and co-accused Kashi Ram armed with pistols went to the house of Mohan Ram and asked for Mohan Lal as they wanted to kill him. Mohan Lal hid in nearby Mill and the accused continued to create trouble. Co-villagers assembled and requested the accused to go away.

       At the instance of the co-accused – Kashi Ram, the appellant – Brij Lal fired at the gathering. Om Prakash and Sultan Bhat received bullet injuries from the shots fired by Brij Lal. Om Prakash died on the spot. Sultan Bhat was rendered unconscious. He was removed to hospital, where he died on the following day, i.e., on 1.10.1983. Kashi Ram also fired from the gun in his possession. It hit Mst. Munni Devi (a woman), who also died on the spot. In the firing under reference, Labh Singh and Sheria (a 5 year old boy) were also injured. The report of the above incident was lodged by Mohan Ram – PW-1, on 1.10.1983 at 12.05 a.m.

       The trial court acquitted the appellant-Brij Lal by accepting the plea of self-defence raised by him.

       The High Court allowed the appeal by State of Rajasthan and convicted the appellant Brij Lal u/s 302 IPC and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment to the appellant-Brij Lal. It also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.