Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, JJ.
Dr. J.N. Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 2531 of 2013
Decided On : 22-05-2024
RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE - Murder and Arms Act - Section 302 IPC, Section 30 of the Arms Act - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 96, 97, 100, and 102 of the IPC, which outline the right to private defense, emphasizing that a person may act in self-defense when there is a reasonable apprehension of danger. The court interpreted these sections to conclude that the appellant acted within his rights when he shot his son-in-law, as he was under threat. The court found that the appellant's actions were not vindictive or malicious, thus influencing the decision to overturn the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Dr. J.N. Mishra, was convicted for the murder of his son-in-law Sudhanshu under Section 302 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act. The incident occurred during a panchayat meeting intended to resolve family disputes. The informant alleged that the appellant shot Sudhanshu after a heated argument, while the appellant claimed he acted in self-defense as Sudhanshu threatened him with a firearm.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR was lodged with a significant delay of 5.5 hours, raising doubts about the credibility of the informant's account. The court also noted that the appellant's actions were in response to a perceived threat from Sudhanshu, who was armed and had previously threatened him. The testimonies indicated that the appellant acted out of a reasonable apprehension for his life.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affects the credibility of the prosecution's case? 2. Did the appellant exceed his right to private defense in shooting Sudhanshu? 3. Was the appellant justified in his actions based on the circumstances of the incident?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to private defense is available when there is a reasonable apprehension of danger. The appellant's belief that he was under threat was deemed reasonable, and the use of force was not excessive given the circumstances. The court emphasized that the assessment of self-defense must consider the subjective perspective of the accused during the incident.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and ordered his immediate release, concluding that he acted in self-defense.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Govind Saran Hajela, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri R.P. Singh Parihar and Sri Sudhir Singh Chauhan, learned counsels for the complainant and Sri Satyendra Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State at length and perused the records.
2. Paper book is ready and learned counsels for the contesting parties are ready to argue the case finally on the merit of the case. We are in the receipt of citations supplied to the Court by the respective counsels in support of their contentions.
3. By means of the present appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellant is assailing the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 07.05.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Shahjahanpur while deciding S.T. No.457 of 2010 arising out of case crime no.155 of 2010, under section 302 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act, police station-Jalalabad, District-Shahjahanpur thereafter convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 302 IPC with life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/-, under section 30 of the Arms Act for six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default of fine, one month additional imprisonment was awarded to the appellant.
FACTS OF THE CASE :
4. Before coming to the merit of the case, it is relevant to give a bird’s eye view to the factual aspect of the issue. As surfaced from the FIR, (I) informant is Ashok Kumar Dubey s/o Ramswaroop, for the incident of 02.03.2010 at 18:00 hours in the evening, the FIR came into existence on the same day at 23:30 hours. The distance from the place of occurrence to the police station is hardly three furlong (603.50 mtr.) ;(ii) the FIR was lodged against the appellant Dr. J.N. Mishra ; Seema(wife of the appellant), Nidhi(daughter of the appellant and wife of the deceased) and one unknown person ; (iii) As per the allegations made in the FIR, informant’s son Sudhanshu (25 years) got married with daughter of the appellant Nidhi. As per the allegation, the appellant wanted to make Sudhanshu as his ‘ghar-jamai’ to look after his nursing home but as per the social norms and traditions, Sudhanshu declined this offer of his father-in-law and on this score, there was deep rooted discord and differences between them; (iv) In order to resolve this tangle, ‘panchayat’ was convened on 02.03.2010 around six in the evening at the clinic of the appellant Dr. J.N. Mishra at Jalalabad whereby the informant, his wife Pushpa and his son-Sudhanshu went to the clinic where the appellant, his wife-Seema and his daughter-Nidhi and one unknown person were present. All of a sudden during heated altercation, the host/ accused-apellant started hurling filthy abuses and thereafter on the exhortation made by Nidhi, wife of the deceased, the appellant and unknown person pumped fires upon his son-in-law Sudhanshu, who died on the spot. Anyhow, the informant and his wife Pushpa could save his life and lodged the present FIR at 11:30 p.m. after the delay of 5.30 hrs.
5. After lodging of the FIR, Investigating Officer of the case has taken dead body of Sudhanshu(deceased) for the post mortem and after having thorough investigation into the matter, submitted the report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. against the appellant Dr. J.N. Mishra alone, dropping the name of other co-accused persons of the FIR. The said charge sheet was submitted under section 302 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act only against accused/appellant. Consequently, learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the offences and being cognizable offence, committed to the court of sessions for trial.
6. Learned trial Court on 26.07.2010 has framed the charges against the appellant under section 302 IPC and since, there is recovery of licensee rifle of 315 bore having no.93 AB 1985 and therefore, Section 30 of the Arms Act was added among the charges which were duly explained to the appellant to which the appellant denied from the charges and insisted to be tried.
7. The prosecution, in order to es
AI
The right to private defense under IPC Sections 96-102 allows an individual to use reasonable force to protect oneself from imminent harm, and the assessment of such defense must consider the subject....
To establish a case under Section 34 of I.P.C. prosecution has to prove prior meeting of minds which may be determined from the conduct of the offenders unfolding itself during the course of action a....
Right of private defence - When right of private defence of property extends to causing death if theft, mischief, or house-trespass, under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that....
Right of private defence - Basic principle underlying doctrine of right of private defence is that when an individual or his property is faced with a danger and immediate aid from State machinery is ....
The distinction between intention and motive is crucial in determining the nature of the offence, and the duty to separate evidence for each accused is essential in criminal cases.
If right of private defence has not been established (on test of preponderance of probabilities) as required under Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act, if court, on an overall appreciation of facts an....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
