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

1940 Supreme(Mad) 108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Burn, J.
In Re: Gampala Subbigadu alias Damasagadu
Versus
Decided On : 09.04.1940

The burden of proof of self-defense lies with the accused under Section 105 of the Evidence Act.

Headnote:

Conviction - Murder - Evidence Act, Section 105

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Bitti Chennugadu. The appellant stabbed the victim multiple times, causing his death. The appellant claimed self-defense, but failed to prove it.

Finding of the Court:

The court confirmed the conviction for murder and the sentence of death, dismissing the appeal.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's claim of self-defense could be proven, and if the severe injuries he sustained should mitigate his punishment.

Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof of self-defense lay on the appellant under Section 105 of the Evidence Act. In the absence of proof, the court could not presume the truth of the plea of self-defense.

Final Decision: The appellant's conviction for murder was confirmed, and the sentence of death was upheld.

JUDGMENT

Burn, J.

1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Cuddapah and sentenced to death for the murder of one Bitti Chennugadu alias Laddugadu on the 19th August, 1939.

2. Bitti Chennugadu was undoubtedly murdered on the 19th August at Buggajapalli where he lives. According to the evidence for the prosecution, P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 and the accused were engaged at about noon in skinning a cow by the side of the Cuddapah-Rayachoti road. At that time Chennugadu, it is said, came and objected to their skinning the cow in that place because it was stinking aisd because it would provoke the anger of any inspecting officer who might come. He threatened to go and report the matter to the Village Munsif and so saying he turned away. When he had gone a few steps, the accused is said to have run after him and stabbed him in the back with the knife which he was using to skin the carcass. Chennugadu ran a few yards further away but the accused pursued him and stabbed him twice in the back and twice in front. The evidence of the doctor who made the post mortem examination the next day (P.W. 1) shows that one of the stabs inflicted from the front penetrated his heart and must have caused death instantaneously.

3. Besides the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 there was the evidence of P.W. 2 a brother of the deceased. He said that he was standing near a shop belonging to one Adam Sab which is close to the scene of the offence. He said that he saw two stabs inflicted. The Village Munsif was informed by one Dhollavadu (he lives half a furlong away). The Village Munsif took a statement (Ex. B) from P.W. 2 at about 2 P.M. and reported the occurrence to the police station at Cuddapah which is about 4 1/2 miles away. The Sub-Inspector of Police reached the village by 7-30 P.M. and held an inquest the same night.

4. The accused in the Sub-Magistrates Court said that he knew nothing about the matter and in the Sessions Court also said that he had never seen the deceased and P.W. 2 but he filed a statement in writing in which he said that the" deceased Chennugadu, Venkatasubbadu and others beat him with stones and sticks and, being unable to bear that, he himself had beaten to protect himself. It was a fact that the accused was very severely injured on the same day. The Village Munsif found him lying unconscious in front of his own house when he, the Village Munsif, was coming towards the scene of the crime. The investigating officer (P.W. 14) found him lying still in the same" place when he reached the village. He made arrangements to send him to the hospital and the Resident Medical Officer (P.W. 6) examined him the next day. He had four lacerated Vounds on his head, an incised wound on his left ear and abrasions on his shoulder and side. He was unconscious at the time the Doctor saw him and the doctor says that he remained unconscious for 2 or 3 days. He was suffering from concussion of the brain and his own life was in danger for a considerable time. He was not discharged from the hospital till the 7th October, 1939. The mother of the accused preferred a complaint to the Sub-Inspector the same night on behalf of her son against P.Ws. 2 and 3 others. The Sub-Inspector says that after investigation he referred that complaint and, it does not appear that any further proceedings were taken on it by the mother of the accused.

5. The prosecution witnesses do not explain these injuries on the person of the accused and learned Counsel has invited us to discard the evidence of the prosecution witnesses for that reason. It is clear, he says, that they have not given a(full or wholly truthful account of what happened and therefore they ought not to be believed. This plea however cannot be accepted in the face of the accuseds own statement that he caused the injuries on the person of the deceased in self-defence. Having set up the plea of self-defence the burden lay on him under Section 105 of the Evidence Act to prove it and in the absence of

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top