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

2017 Supreme(Cal) 438

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA AT PORT BLAIR
I.P. MUKERJI, SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE, JJ.
Prem Santhi & Others - Petitioners
Versus
The State - Respondent
CRA Nos. 018 to 021 of 2015
Decided On : 19-06-2017

Advocate Appeared:
Deep Chaim Kabir, Arul Prasanth, Ajit Prasad, Tulsi Lall, P.K. Bala, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of the right of private defence under the Indian Penal Code in the context of a fatal shooting incident.

Headnote:

Right of Private Defence - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 96, 97, 99, 100, 102 - The court discussed the right of private defence under the Indian Penal Code and emphasized the principles relating to the right of self or private defence as formulated in Sections 96, 97, 99, 100 and 102 of the Indian Penal Code. The court highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations in reaching the decision.

Fact of the Case:

A fatal shooting incident occurred, leading to the death of Inder Nath. Conflicting witness testimonies and unreliable evidence made it difficult to ascertain the sequence of events. The accused claimed self-defence, while the prosecution presented a different version of the events.

Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the defence of the accused invoking the right of private defence or self-defence. The dying declaration was deemed unreliable, and the court found the accused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the conflicting testimonies, the validity of the dying declaration, and the application of the right of private defence by the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of the right of private defence as per the Indian Penal Code and assessed the actions of the accused in light of these legal provisions.

Final Decision: The accused was found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced to three years of simple imprisonment. The conviction under section 307 was set aside against all the accused, and the sentences were to run concurrently with the right under Section 428 Cr.P.C available to all the convicts.

JUDGMENT :

I.P. Mukerji, J.

1. A most horrifying and macabre incident occurred in the late afternoon of 11th August, 1995. The exact time is not known. According to the prosecution witness No.1 Jay Raj Swamy, the incidents leading to the main incident started at around 4.30 or 5 p.m, whereas according to the prosecution witness No.3, Moti Ram it all began between 3.30 p.m. and 4.00 p.m.

2. Nagesh Ram the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 020 of 2015 Shri Nagesh Ram –vs- The State, took out a 12 bore double barrel breech loading gun, popularly known as a shotgun. The field of action of this device seems to be semicircular and its action devastating. This fire arm has two triggers. If the first trigger is pulled, the cartridge in the left barrel of the gun bursts open, discharging the pellets like a spray. When the second trigger is pulled the cartridge in the right barrel bursts open, spraying the pellets. Each cartridge has 25 to 30 pellets.

3. Now, from this shotgun Nagesh Ram fired at point blank range at the victim Inder Nath. It is not at all clear when this shooting took place, but he was taken to G.B.Pant Hospital and admitted there at 5.55 p.m. on that day, according to the medical report of injury prepared by the G.B. Pant Hospital, which is Exhibit No.17. This report says that there were “multiple pellet injuries spread all over the chest region. X-ray examination of the chest, abdomen and right forearm was made.” Dr. (Mrs.) S.Pal wrote an advice in the report that Inder Nath be referred to a surgeon. Thereafter what medical treatment was rendered to him is unknown. He died in the surgical ward of the hospital within a period of one and a half hours of his admission into the hospital, precisely at 7.20 p.m.

4. About half an hour before his death at 6.50 p.m., Inder Nath is said to have made a dying declaration before one V.K. Balan the Tehsildar which is Exhibit 31. Mr. Balan certified that the patient was fully conscious at the time of the recording of the statement. The left thumb impression of Inder Nath was taken under the recorded version of the statement. Balan was dead at the time of examination of the witnesses as submitted to us at the time of hearing of this appeal. According to the dying declaration Nagesh Ram and his family members assaulted Inder Nath when he rode in, in a scooter. Thereafter, Nagesh Ram sprayed bullets into him from a shotgun.

5. A post-mortem was carried out on 12th August, 1995 between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. 14 pellets were removed from the body of Inder Nath and handed over by the Medical Officer to the Police as per the post-mortem examination report which is Exhibit No. 27.

6. This shooting was part of a sequence of events that took place that fateful afternoon. The setting for these acts was an alley, 2.80 meters wide, in Garacharma Basthi about 7 Km. from Port Blair. It has a row of small houses. A map of the locale was exhibited as exhibit No.32. Nagesh occupied house No. 1, Balram house No.2 and Inder Nath house No.5. There is evidence on record to suggest that it took five minutes for Inder Nath to walk from his house to Nagesh’s house. The incidents occurred in an area outside Balwant’s house. It is very difficult to come to a conclusion about the details of the incidents that took place, because the evidence on record is unsatisfactory, unreliable and contradictory. But it does appear from the injury report certified by Dr. (Mrs.) S.Pal on 11th August, 1995 at 6.20 p.m. which is Exhibit No. 18 that Pramod Ram was found by her with a lacerated wound on the front scalp measuring 10 cm x 3 cm and another lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm on the left side of the parietal region. She described the injury as ‘skin deep’ and ‘simple’. Hardeep Ram also had similar injuries, although the dimensions may have been shorter as per Exhibit No. 19. Surender Nath, the son of Inder Nath also had a lacerated wound on the left side of the forehead (Exhibit No. 21). Pramod Ram and Hardeep Ram were discharged from














































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top