IMPORTANT POINT
Where accused suffers injuries during course of incident, the prosecution is under an obligation to explain them and failure may result in court drawing an inference that prosecution was suppressing the genesis of incident.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code. 1860Sections 304 part II. 326 and 324 Appellant gave knife blow on stomach, of deceased who died instantaneously an4 inflicted knife blows on P.W. 7 and P.W. 11 when they tried to rescue deceased - Right of private defence pleaded during trial- Appellant received three incised wounds two of which were on vital part of body i.e. face and chin - Eye-witnesses did not explain incised wounds on face and chin of appellant - Trial Judge was right in reaching conclusion that it was P.W. 11 who first assaulted appellant with a knife and appellant snatched knife from him and assaulted him - Right of private defence is preventive and not punitive - Appellant had no right of private defence against deceased and P.W. 11 who were unarmed - Appellant was rightly convicted u/s. 304 part II I.P.C. and u/s. 326 I.P.C. for injury inflicted on P.W. 7 - Sentence of 5 years imprisonment for 1st offence and 3 years imprisonment for second offence was commensurate with gravity of act and called for no interference. (Paras 10 to 15)
       (ii) Right of Private Defence - If right is available on basis of prosecution evidence, said benefit cannot be denied because statement of accused was not in tune and harmony with what emerged from evidence - Right of private defence cannot be weighed in golden scales. (Paras 12 & 13)
       Result: Appeal No, 62 partly allowed. Other appeals & Revision dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Vishnu Sahai, J. - Since these four connected matters arise out of the same set of facts and a common impugned Judgment, we are disposing them off by one Judgment.

Subhash Mallikarjun Menase the Original Accused was tried by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge. Solapur in Sessions Case No. 127 of 1984 for offences punishable under sections 302/324/326 of I.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced vide Judgment dated 22-1-1985 in the manner stated hereinafter:

(i) Under section 304 Part II I.P.C. to 5 years RI.

(ii) Under Section 324 I.P.C. to I year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo R.I. for 2 months.

(iii) Under section 326 I.P.C. to 3 years RI. and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months.

Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1985 has been preferred by Subhash Minase, assailing his said conviction and sentence.

Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 1985 has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra against his acquittal for offence under section 302 I.P.C.

Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 1985 has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra with a prayer that the sentence awarded to him for offences under sections 304 part 2 I.P.C. 324 and 326 I.P.C. be enhanced.

Criminal Revision Application No. 77 of 1985 arises out of suo motu notice issued by a learned Single Judge of this Court (Kotwal, J) in terms that the appellant should show cause as to why his sentence be not enhanced.

2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under:

The informant Sharanappa Revansidhappa Hulle P.W. 5, was the husband of the deceased Annapurna. The couple had no issues and therefore adopted Revansidha alias Vilas P.W. 11 as their son. Muktabai P.W. 8 was the real sister of Annapurna. She had two daughters namely Papi alias Snehlata P.W. 10 and Surekha. The latter was married to Revansidha alias Vilas. The said persons lived together in a house called 'Hulle Nivas' at Shelgi within the limits of Jaluka police station in the District of Solapur.

Sharanappa Hulle P.W. 5 had five tenants. One of them was the accused Subhash Menase. He wanted his tenants to vacate their respective premises as he was short of accommodation. On this score, relations between him and the accused got strained.

On 20-4-1984, at about 8 a.m. Papi P.W. 10 had gone to the back side of the house and a quarrel between her and the accused took place. When Annapurna intervened in the same, the appellant inflicted stick blows on her person. Annapurna lodged complaint (Exhibit 26) in respect of that incident. The same day the accused after locking his room and went away.

On 23-4-1984, at about 7 a. m. Papi went to bring a packet of biscuits. She came back and informed the deceased and others that accused was in Mallikarjun temple. Consequently, Sharanappa along with Revansidha, Annapurna, Muktabai and Papi went to Mallikarjun temple to tell him to remove his luggage. On reaching the temple, Sharanappa and others found that the accused armed with a knife (at some places, it has been described as a gupti) was standing near the platform of the temple. On seeing Sharanappa and others, he pushed Papi. sat on her back and started inflicting knife blows thereon. Revansidha rushed to her rescue and thereupon he set her free and started inflicting knife blows on his ribs. In the meantime, he gave a knife blow on the stomach of Annapurna who succumbed to her injuries instantaneously. When Muktabai rushed to the rescue he inflicted a knife blow on her stomach. Muktabai caught hold of the knife and Sharanappa also tried to catch hold of it and in that process, both Sharanappa and the accused sustained injuries, on their hands.

Apart from the victims, this incident was also seen by Mallikarjun Patil, Chanappa Bableshwar and Basawaraj Kumbhar. Immediately after the incident, a rickshaw was arranged for and in the same, Sharanappa. Revansidha, Muktabai and Papi came to the Civil Hospital Solapur.

3. The injuries of Muktabai, Sharanappa. Revansidha and Papi wer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

IMPORTANT POINTWhere accused suffers injuries during course of incident, the prosecution is under an obligation to explain them and failure may result in court drawing an inference that prosecution was suppressing the genesis of incident.

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
Where accused suffers injuries during course of incident, the prosecution is under an obligation to explain them and failure may result in court drawing an inference that prosecution was suppressing the genesis of incident.