Allahbad High Court
M.H.BEG
Mangat - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 01/31/1966
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTION 304 - CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER - FACTUAL MATRIX OF SUDDEN FIGHT AND QUARREL - APPLICABILITY OF EXCEPTION 4 - BURDEN OF PROOF - EVIDENCE APPRECIATION - JUDICIAL DISCRETION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, Mangat and his son Kanwla, were convicted of an offence punishable under the first part of Section 304, P. C. and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment by an Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut. The prosecution case was that, while Khazan deceased was sitting and smoking in front of his house, near a well, on 11-9-1963, at about 4 p.m., in village Silana, the two appellants, together with Prakash and Jadubira, two other sons of Mangat who were tried together with the appellants but acquitted, came along and attacked Khazan with lathis. On the intervention of Jagpal (P. W. 1), and Jagdish (P. W. 5), the two sons of Khazan, and Khanno (P. W. 6), the wife of Khazan, these three were also beaten. The injuries on the body of Khazan were serious and resulted in his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution version, as to who the aggressor was, had been proved to be true beyond all reasonable doubt whereas the defence version could not possibly be held to be true. It was not necessary to resort to the principle laid down in Jumman's case, AIR 1957 SC 469 (supra) which did not apply at all.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were the aggressors and caused the death of Khazan? 2. Whether the defence version of a sudden fight and quarrel, attracting the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, was tenable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were the aggressors and caused the death of Khazan. The court relied on the following factors: a) The number of injuries on Khazan and his two sons was much larger compared to the injuries of Mangat and Kanwla. b) The place of occurrence was right in front of the house of Khazan, making it unlikely that Khazan and his sons would have started the attack. c) The prosecution had established two motives for the attack, while the defence could prove no intelligible motive. d) The defence version was incompatible with the number of injuries found on the two sides. 2. The court held that the defence version of a sudden fight and quarrel, attracting the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, was not tenable. The court found that the defence version was not supported by the evidence and was purely speculative.
Final Decision: The court upheld the convictions and sentences passed upon the appellants and dismissed the appeal.
2. On 13-9-1963, Dr. Nahar Singh (P. W. 13), performed the post-mortem examination on the body of Khazan, and he found 14 injuries which included two very serious injuries on the head causing internal fractures on the parietal bones. There were also other injuries on the shoulder and the chest showing that the head was aimed at. The cause of death was put down as shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries. On 12-9-1963, at 7.55 p.m. Dr. R. L. Chopra, Medical Officer, Baraut, had examined Jagdish P. W. 5, and found six injuries which consisted of one on the head, one on shoulder, two on the back, one on the face and one on the left leg. These injuries indiciated that the assailants were strong enough to drive back Jagdish who sustained two injuries on his back. Soon after that, he examined Smt. Khanno (P. W. 6) and found one scabbed abrasion 5/8" x 1/4" on her right thigh. He also examined Jagpal (P. W. ) at about the same time, and found a contused wound on the right scalp 3½" above the right ear. The approximate duration of these injuries was given as 26 hours. This brings the time of occurrence to nearly 5 p.m on the previous day which is near enough when compared with the time estimated by the prosecution witnesses as about 4 p.m. on 11-9-63. The F.I.R. lodged by Jagpal (P. W. 1) at Police Station Chaprauli, three miles from village Silana, gives an account of the occurrence. It also mentioned that Jagpal and his brother had plied lathis in self-defence. It disclosed that the occurrence was seen by Baldeo (P. W 3), Mangey (P. W. 4), Girwar (P. W. 12), Risala (P. W. 8) and Kashi Ram Pradhan (not produced).
3. The defence version, sought to be established through the evidence of Daya Chand (D. W. 2), the brother of Girwar (P. W. 8), was that Mangat came to the well to draw water where Khazan deceased and Jagdish (P. W. 5) and Jagpal (P. W. 1) were present already with lathis. It was alleged that Khazan started abusing Mangat and told him not to draw water from the well situated on Khazan's land, whereupon Mangat protested and said that the well was joint. Khazan, Jagpal, and Jagdish are alleged to have been attacked Mangat with lathis. In the meantime, Kawnla, appellant, is also said to have reached there and plied his lathis in self defence. According to Daya Chand ( D. W. 2), Mangat had also picked up a 'Denda' lying near the well and used it to defend himself Mangat was said to have brought only a bucket although no bucket was found there. Daya Chand admitted that relations between Khazan deceased and Mangat were strained for a year or two before the occurrence. He also stated that he jumped "in the midst of the Marpit", that Mangat was given 5 to 7 blows by Jagdish, and that Jagpal and Kanwla had received 4 or 5 blows where as Khazan had received only 2 to 3 lathi blows and the wife of Khazan had been merely pushed. But, Daya Chand had no injuries. The injuries proved on the body of Mangat, appellant, by Dr. D. S. Kapoor, who examined him on 14-9-63, were two contused wounds on the head, two scabbed abrasion on the forehead, and another scabbed abrasion on the right eyebrow. At about the same time, Dr. D. S. Kapoor
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.