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

1999 Supreme(MP) 882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
S.P. Srivastava and R.B. Dixit, JJ.
Amrita @ Amritlal
Vs.
State of M. P.
Cri. Appeal No. 251 of 1989
Decided On: 24.11.1999

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.K. Barua
For Respondents/Defendant: J.P. Sharma, Panel Lawyer for State

The right of private defense is limited to the extent necessary to inflict harm for the purpose of defense and is subject to the limitations set forth in sections 99, 100, 102, and 106 of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 307 IPC - FACTUAL MATRIX - EVIDENCE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 99, 100, 102, 106 IPC - RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE - REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF DANGER - EXTENT OF RIGHT - LIMITATIONS - APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES - FINDING OF GUILT UNDER SECTIONS 302, 307 IPC UPHELD.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code for firing from the roof of his house towards a complainant party, resulting in the death of two individuals and injuries to several others. The incident occurred during a dispute between the complainant party and the appellant's father, who was the Sarpanch and Patel of the village.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant had not acted in self-defense as there was no imminent danger to his life or grievous bodily injuries to his father. The court also found that the appellant had exceeded the right of self-defense by firing indiscriminately on the complainant party, resulting in the death of two individuals and injuries to several others.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellant acted in self-defense? 2. Whether the appellant exceeded the right of self-defense?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right of private defense is limited to the extent necessary to inflict harm for the purpose of defense. 2. The right of private defense of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or any other harm to the assailant if the offense is of such a nature that it may reasonably cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt. 3. The right of private defense commences as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offense. 4. In order to establish the plea of private defense, it must be shown that there was imminent danger of life or grievous bodily injuries to the person exercising the right.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

R.B. Dixit, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 13-7-1989 in Sessions Trial No. 47/1986 of 3rd Additional Judge to the Sessions Judge, Morena convicting appellant under sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him for life and for four years RI respectively.

2. The facts leading to the incident as alleged by the prosecution are as under:

The complainant party which consisted of 10 male members, ladies and children, all in three bullock carts went from their village Patel Ka Pura to worship Gol Devta through the route of village of appellant namely Pokher Ka Pura on 1-5-1985. The complainant party while going from their village to Gol Devta, on way visited appellant and his father who at the material time was Sarpanch and Patel of village. He scolded the complainant party for their refusal to allow to remove the Transformer from their village.

3. After worshipping Gol Devta when complainant party was returning from the same route in front of the residence of appellant and co-accused Badri again there was verbal exchange between co-accused Badri and appellant on one side and complainant party on the other side. This resulted in fighting between two parties wherein, appellant fired from the roof of his house towards complainant party thereby resulting gun shot injuries to deceased Lakhpat. Udal and injured Ramdayal, Gyan-Singh, Nirpat and Munshi. Basudev and acquitted co-accused Badri also received pallet injuries in the same firing.

4. Deceased Udal and Lakhpat died on the spot and injured Munshi (PW2) accompanied by his son Ramdayal (PW5) lodged first information report (Ex. P/7) at Police Station Jaura. A.S.I. PremNarayan Tripathi (PW8) immediately arrived on the spot and during inquest, recorded Panchnama of the dead bodies of the deceased Udal (Ex. P/9) and Lakhpat (Ex. P/10). He also prepared spot map (Ex. P/8) and collected blood stained soil and simple soil from the spot (Ex. P/11 and P/14). He also found broken bangles (Ex. P/19) near the dead body of deceased Udal and other pieces of broken bangles near the dead body of deceased Lakhpat (P/18). He also collected 5 empty cartridges of 12 bore gun from the top of Patore of acquitted co-accused Badri (P/20).

5. Dr. V. C. Dubey (PW1) on 2-5-1985, conducted post-mortem (Ex. P/1) of the dead body of deceased Udal and found following injuries on his person:

"Gun shot wound on left side of chest extending above from eyebrow to below up to the upper part of mandible and medialy from lateral side of Nose to the ear laterally 10 cm x 6 cm x 3 cm. There was fragment of temporal bone and frontal bone and abscess of Maxillary bone. All structure of face Lt. side at wound absent due to this wound (skin, muscles, bones vessels, & Nerves). The margins are irregular in shape blackening all around the wound. There was fracture of frontal bone left side with laceration in brain membrance and brain at the frontal area region with blood clots. Both sides of chest were empty, fracture of left maxilla, temporal and frontal bone.

In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to gun shot leading haemorrhage, and shock. The duration was within 24 hours from the examination.

6. On the same date Dr. V. C. Dubey conducted autopsy (Ex. P/2) of the dead body of deceased Lakhpat and found following injuries on his person:

(i) Fire arm wound at (Rt) sidd of chest 3" below to Rt. nipple about circular in shape 1 cm. deep, inverted margins collor of abrasion seen. No F.B. present.

(ii) Fire arm wound at (Lt) side of chest 1cm. lateral to sternum at 8th 1 cs. about circular in shape 1/4 cm, in diameter and 1 cm. deep, inverted margins. Collar of abrasion seen. No foreign body present;

(iii) Fire arm wound at upper left part of abdomen about circular in shape 1/4 cm. in diameter and 1/2 cm. deep, inverted margins, collor of abrasion seen. No foreign body was found;

(iv) Fire arm wound on left side of back 1 cm. below to inf. angle of scapula oval in shape 1/3 cm. in dia



























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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