Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 679

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
RAJNISH KUMAR, BABITA RANI, JJ.
State of U.P. – Appellant
Versus
Tulsi Ram – Respondent
Government Appeal No. 91 of 1987
Decided On : 30-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Bireshwar Nath
For the Respondent: Ram Naresh Singh Chauhan

The right of private defence does not extend to using disproportionate force or causing death over a trivial property dispute. The prosecution's failure to explain minor, superficial injuries on an accused is not fatal to the case when the evidence of guilt is otherwise cogent, consistent, and credible.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 323, 34, 304 Part II - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 - Right of private defence - Burden of proof rests on the accused under Section 105 of the Evidence Act to establish a preponderance of probabilities - Private defence does not extend to disproportionate force beyond what is necessary (Section 99) - Right to cause death is limited to circumstances where there is reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt (Section 100). (Paras 18, 19, 20, 21, 28)

(B) Evidence - Non-explanation of injuries sustained by an accused - When injuries are minor and superficial, the omission by the prosecution to explain them is not necessarily fatal to the case, provided the prosecution’s version remains cogent, consistent, and credible - A plea of self-defence cannot be based on surmises or speculative aggression when the deceased was unarmed and the accused initiated the violence. (Paras 32, 33, 36, 38)

(C) Appeal - Scope - Appellate court must correct perversity in trial court findings - Acquittal predicated on assumptions regarding an alleged struggle, unsupported by evidence of weapon possession by the victim, is liable to be set aside. (Paras 35, 43, 44)

Facts of the case:
A violent altercation occurred between neighbours over the installation of a drainage pipe on a rooftop. The prosecution alleged that the accused party, feeling offended by the installation, attacked the deceased and another witness with lethal weapons, leading to the death of one person. The accused claimed a plea of private defence and argued that their actions were justified due to a property dispute and that the prosecution had failed to explain superficial injuries sustained by one of them. The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that they acted in self-defence and that the omission to explain the accused's injuries was fatal to the prosecution's case.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court determined that the accused initiated the aggression and that the force used against the unarmed deceased was highly disproportionate and excessive. It concluded that the minor, superficial injuries on the accused did not suffice to prove a need for self-defence to the extent of causing death, particularly as the prosecution’s ocular evidence regarding the incident was reliable.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the trial court correctly granted the benefit of private defence, whether the failure to explain minor injuries on the accused vitiated the entire prosecution case, and whether the acquittal verdict was based on perversity or erroneous assumptions.

Ratio Decidendi: While the burden of proving private defence is on the accused, it requires demonstrating a reasonable apprehension of harm and a proportionality of force used. When prosecution evidence is otherwise credible, the failure to explain minor or superficial injuries on the accused is not fatal. Violent retaliation for a trivial property dispute, where the victim is unarmed, indicates an intent to cause grievous harm rather than a justifiable exercise of self-defence.

Result: Appeal allowed; judgment of acquittal set aside; remaining accused found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and causing simple hurt.

Table of Content
1. overview of procedural history and factual evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. arguments regarding right of private defence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
3. statutory framework and judicial standards for private defence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. proportionality and necessity in exercising private defence. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. impact of non-explanation of simple injuries on prosecution. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
6. standard of proof for charges under the arms act. (Para 39 , 40 , 41)
7. determination of intent and classification of homicide. (Para 42 , 43 , 44)
8. final adjudication of appeal and sentencing status. (Para 45 , 46 , 47)

JUDGMENT :

Babita Rani, J.

1. Heard Sri Arunendra, learned AGA for the State/appellant and Shri Ram Naresh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. challenging the judgment and order dated 31.03.1986 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Unnao acquitting the respondents (hereinafter referred to as accused) for the charges under Sections 302/323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for brevity) in re: State v. Tulsi Ram and others, bearing S.T. No. 386/84 and in re: State vs. Harnaam, under Section 25 of the Arms Act in S.T. No. 235/85, police station Makhi, District Unnao.

3. During pendency of the appeal, accused Tulsiram and Lakshmi Narain, had passed away and thus, the instant appeal was abated on their behalf by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2022. Now instant appeal survives only for accused Jagat Pal and Harnaam.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.06.1984, at about 10:00 AM, the informant’s brother, Jamuna Prasad (deceased) was fixing parnala on his roof and the informant, Amrit Lal(PW1), was putting up mud on his rooftop. The accused opposed installation of parnala on the ground that the same would result in the flow of water on their roof. However, Jamuna Prasad refused to budge and continued fixing the parnala stating that the rain water had been flowing to the roof of the accused through the parnala from old times. This resulted in a heated exchange between the two sides, and on the instigation of accused Tulsi Ram, accused Lakshmi Narayan with lathi, Harnaam with bhala and Jagat Pal with lathi having iron rings on it, came and assaulted the person of Jamuna Prasad (deceased) with their lethal weapon. PW1, who was on his roof, rushed to save his brother Jamuna Prasad and in this process, he was also beaten up by them. The incident was witnessed by PW2, who was working on his roof as well as other neighbours working on their roof who assembled on hearing the hues and cries. The accused, thereafter, fled away from the spot with their weapons. When the injured Jamuna Prasad was being taken to hospital for treatment by complainant Amrit Lal by a bullock cart, he succumbed to injuries. Complainant Amrit Lal submitted an application of incident to the police concerned to lodge the first information report.

5. On the basis of written tehrir (Ex. Ka.1) of complainant Amrit Lal (PW1), the first information report (Ex. Ka.3) was registered in Police Station- Makhi on 15.06.1984 under Sections 302/323 of IPC by PW 4 Head Constable Shubh Karan Singh. The investigation was entrusted to PW7, Sh Ram Lal Yadav, who reached on the spot and after nomination of panch, prepared the panchnama of the body Ex. Ka10 and collected blood soaked clothes and soil samples vide recovery memo Ex. Ka14 and 15 as well. The site plan Ex. Ka16 was prepared at the instance of complainant PW1. Post-mortem of the body was conducted by Dr. S.P. Rastogi (PW5), who prepared the report Ex. Ka-8. On 17.06.1984, the accused namely Harnaam and Lakshmi Narayan were arrested. Accused Harnaam in custody made a disclosure statement that he had hidden the lathi and bhala used in the incident in his house. He led to the p