Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ANIRUDDHA SINGH, J.
Nankai and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 7906 of 2008
Decided On : 27-05-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Rajesh Kumar Verma, Adv., Harsh Narayan Singh, Adv., Prashant Kumar Singh, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the right of private defence under Sections 99, 100, and 103 of the Indian Penal Code, and the burden of proof under Section 105 of the Evidence Act.
Headnote:
Right of Private Defence - Criminal Law - Section 304 (Part II) and 504 of I.P.C. - Sections 99, 100, 103, and 105 of I.P.C. - The court discussed the right of private defence under Sections 99, 100, and 103 of the Indian Penal Code and the burden of proving the case of the accused under Section 105 of the Evidence Act. The judgment also highlighted the legal provisions related to the right of private defence and their interpretations, influencing the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over land resulting in an assault on the complainant, leading to his death. The appellants claimed self-defence and disputed the evidence against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injury causing the death was not covered under the right of private defence and that the burden of proving self-defence was not discharged by the accused. The court also differentiated the level of offense for the female appellants and considered the time elapsed since the incident in sentencing.
Issues: The key issues involved determining the applicability of the right of private defence, the burden of proof, and the level of offense for the female appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the injury causing death was not covered under the right of private defence, and the burden of proving self-defence was not discharged by the accused. The court also differentiated the level of offense for the female appellants and considered the time elapsed since the incident in sentencing.
Final Decision: The appeal of appellant-Nankai was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court under Section 304 (Part II) I.P.C. were confirmed. The appeal of appellants Smt. Chaubi and Smt. Uma Devi was partly allowed, and they were sentenced to the period already undergone.
JUDGMENT :
ANIRUDDHA SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Rahul Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Harsh Narain Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party and Sri Mayank Mishra (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellants, namely, Nankai, Smt. Chaubi and Smt. Uma Devi against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 800 of 2006, arising out of Case Crime No. 160 of 2006, under Sections 304 (Part II) and 504 of I.P.C., Police Station Khaga, District Fatehpur whereby appellant no.1 Nankai was convicted and sentenced under Section 304 (Part II) of I.P.C. for ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo six months additional imprisonment, and appellant nos.2 & 3, namely, Smt. Chaubi & Smt. Uma Devi were convicted and sentenced under Section 304 (Part II) of I.P.C. for five years rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In case of default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo three months additional imprisonment each. However, all the appellants were acquitted under Section 504 I.P.C.
3. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that F.I.R. (NCR) was lodged on 17.6.2006 at 8:30 A.M. by Ramu @ Ram Nath for the dispute over the land to the effect that when appellant Nankai was placing bricks over the land beside the hand-pamp, situated in front of the house of the complainant, the complainant stopped from placing bricks stating that the same would face problem in filling up the water from the hand-pamp whereupon the appellant Nankai excited and used filthy language upon the complainant. Accused Nankai further stated that since it is my own land hence he would place the bricks. When complainant opposed to do the same, the accused Nankai called other accused persons, namely, Smt. Chaubi, Smt. Uma Devi and Maikoo and they assaulted upon the complainant. The complainant received injuries on head. NCR (FIR) under Sections 323 & 504 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Khaga, District Fatehpur. Later on complainant (Ramu @ Ram Nath) died. Hence Section 304 I.P.C. was substitute in place of Section 323 I.P.C.
4. A case was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants. Upon submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of Sessions on 20.11.2006 and they denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded to be not guilty and claimed to be tried the case.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1-Rakesh Kumar, P.W.2-Smt. Dharma Devi, P.W.3-Dr. A.K. Jaisal, P.W.-4 Kishori Lal (Chief Pharmacist), P.W.5- Dr. Vivek Nigam, P.W.6- Rajendra Prasad (Head Moharrir) and P.W.7-Amarnath Pandey (S.I.).
6. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 I.P.C. They specifically stated that F.I.R. (NCR) was lodged ante timed. The accused Nankai further stated that when he was placing the bricks in his own field, Smt Dharma Devi and Ramu came armed with lathi and axe attempted to beat him. The father and mother of accused Nankai had come to intercede and saved him. In this incident, his mother received injuries and his father in his self defence given a lathi blow and case under Section 107/117 Cr.P.C. was registered against Ramu. Ramu was arrested by the Police personnel. He received injuries by fallen in the field and while beaten by the Police. He was the step-brother of the deceased (Ramu). Ramu was pressurizing his father to give land, hence quarrel was done and Ramu assaulted his father and he has been falsely implicated. Other accused persons, namely, Smt. Uma Devi stated in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that she was not present at the time of incident and she was inside her house and she was falsely implicated. Smt.
