Back
2003 Supreme(Raj) 466
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Shiv Kumar Sharma,Khem Chand Sharma
Jai Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 1998
Decided On : 05/22/2003
Appearance :
S.R. Bajwa, Sr. Advocate and V.P. Bishnoi, Advocate, for the Appellant.
S.S. Rathore, Public Prosecutor and S.S. Sunda, Advocate, for the Respondents.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the right of private defence under Section 103 IPC in the context of a dispute over the use of a water course, and the court's interpretation of the appellants' actions as justified self-defence.
Headnote:
Right of Private Defence - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Section 302/34 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the use of a water course, which led to a fatal altercation resulting in the death of Net Ram. The appellants were initially found guilty of murder, but claimed that they acted in self-defence due to the deceased's interference with the water course.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants had a right to use the water course, which was meddled with by the deceased. It concluded that the appellants had a reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt and were justified in exercising their right of private defence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants acted in self-defence when the deceased interfered with the water course, leading to his death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of Section 103 IPC, which extend the right of private defence in cases of theft or mischief, and concluded that the appellants' actions fell within the scope of self-defence as per the legal provisions.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants of the murder charges, ruling that their actions were protected under the right of private defence. The appellants were acquitted of the charges under Section 302 IPC and Section 302/34 IPC.
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-Meddling with the water course followed by a wrangle resulted in death of Net Ram. The appellants Jai Singh and Brabmanand along with their brothers Chet Ram and father Harphool were indicated for having committed murder of Net Ram before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Alwar who vide Judgment dated January 20, 1998 did not find the charges proved against Harphool and Chet Ram and acquitted them. However appellants Jai Singh and Brabmanand were found guilty, convicted and sentenced as under:
1. Brabmanand:
Under Section 302 IPCTo suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000A in default further suffer six months S.I.
2. JaiSingh:
Under Section 302/34 IPCTo suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-in default further suffer six months S.I.
2. The prosecution case giving rise to this appeal in nutshell is that the informant Ram Kishore (PW. 3) submitted written report (Ex. P.5) to the SHO Police Station Malakhera on December 27, 1996 with the averments that around 8.00 a.m. on the said day while Net Ram was watering his field, Brabmanand, Jai Singh, Chet Ram, and Harphool armed with spade, farsi and tabbal (sharp edged weapon) came over there and assaulted Netram. Brabmanand inflicted spade blow on his head, Jai Singh gave farsi blow on his foot and Chet Ram caused injuries by tabbal (a sharp edged weapon) on his hand and Harphool gave tabbal blow on his thigh. When Jagdish made attempt to intervene Brabmanand inflicted spade blow on his head and Jai Singh caused injuries on his finger. Jai Singh also gave farsi blow on the finger of Amar Chand. After finding Netram dead the accused fled away. The Police Station Malakhera registered a case under Sections 323, 341, 447 and 307 IPC and investigation commenced. After the death of Netram the case was converted into one under section 302 IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions No. 3. Alwar. Charges under Sections 302, 302/34, 447, 323, and 341 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 20 witnesses. In the explanation under section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants claimed innocence. Four witnesses were examined in defence. On hearing final submissions the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above.
3. Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned senior counsel although raised various contention to shatter the prosecution case but the main plank of his submission was that the deceased Net Ram deliberately committed mischief by meddling with the water course which was utilized by the appellants at the relevant time as per the condition agreed in the partition. The appellants when made protest, they were assaulted by the complainant party, therefore in exercise of right of private defence, if some blows with spade might have dealt with resulted in death of Net Ram, no offence was committed by the appellants in view of Sections 100 and 103 IPC.
.4. On the other hand Mr. S.S. Rathore, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. S.S. Sunda, learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and urged that the threat to the person or property of the appellants was neither real nor immediate thus there was no occasion to exercise the right of private defence. In fact the act of the appellants is covered under clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC and they have been rightly convicted.
.5. We have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record.
6. Theprosecution case mainly rests on the testimony of Jagdish (PW. 1); Ram Kishore (PW. 3), and Amar Chand (PW. 8), who are the eye witnesses of the occurrence.
.7. Dr. Raj Kumar(PW. 20) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Net Ram vide Ex. P-3 1 and found three antimortem injuries on his person thus:
.(i) Incised wound: 1” x 1/4” x bone deep on left parieta
