Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Gudda @ Ramsajivan – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2486 of 1998
Decided On : 14-10-2022
Private Defence - Criminal Law - IPC 304 - The judgment discusses the appellant's claim of private defence and the court's analysis of the principles of private defence as per IPC. The court found that the appellant exceeded the right of private defence and caused culpable homicidal death of the deceased. The court also discussed the relevant provisions of IPC 304 and concluded that the appellant is guilty under section 304 part II of IPC instead of section 304 part I.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 304 Part I of IPC for causing the death of the deceased during a scuffle. The appellant claimed private defence, but the court found that he exceeded the right of private defence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant exceeded the right of private defence and caused culpable homicidal death of the deceased. The court also altered the conviction from section 304 part I of IPC to 304 part II of IPC and sentenced the appellant to the sentence already undergone by him along with a fine of Rs. 25000 payable to the legal representative of the deceased.
Issues: The issues involved the appellant's claim of private defence, the interpretation of relevant provisions of IPC, and the appropriate conviction and sentencing for the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the appellant exceeded the right of private defence and caused culpable homicidal death of the deceased. The court also interpreted the relevant provisions of IPC 304 and concluded that the appellant is guilty under section 304 part II of IPC instead of section 304 part I.
Final Decision: The conviction of the appellant is altered from section 304 part I of IPC to 304 part II of IPC, and the appellant is sentenced to the sentence already undergone by him along with a fine of Rs. 25000 payable to the legal representative of the deceased. On default of payment of fine, the appellant shall suffer 3 months R.I.
JUDGMENT
1. The instant appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment and finding dated 11.09.1998 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Session Trial No.432/1997 whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted under Sections 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC'™) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default 6 months R.I.
2. The prosecution story in the nutshell is that on 22.08.1997, at about 12 in the noon, deceased-Mannu was engaged in some farming work, at that time, the appellant/accused was grazing his bull. Dispute arose when appellant released his bull into the farm of Karodi and when deceased tried to stop him on which the appellant started abusing him and inflicted an axe blow on his neck due to which deceased fell down. Rambabu, Tijai and Bhalu were present on the spot. Bhalu went to village and informed uncle Kanchedilal. Kanchedilal reached the spot and found the deceased in unconscious state. They brought the deceased to the village and then took him to Naryawali Police Station. On their way to Hospital, the deceased died. Initially, the police registered the FIR of Exb. P/8 for the offences under section 294 and 307 of IPC but on account of death of deceased, offences under sections 506 B and 302 of IPC were enhanced subsequently.
3. After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried, therefore, the trial Court proceeded further and recorded the statements of as many as 23 prosecution witnesses as well as statement of appellant/accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
4. After evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304 part I of IPC instead of section 302 of IPC and sentenced him, as mentioned above.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. In fact, the deceased was aggressor and having sharp edged weapon i.e. atarna. He caused several injuries to the appellant, even on vital part of his body i.e. head. When the appellant tried to snatch the weapon from the deceased, the incident had taken place. The learned trial Court erred in holding that the appellant is guilty for causing death of deceased. A counter case bearing crime no. 178/97 for the offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 294, and 506-B was also registered by the police against the deceased. It can be easily seen from the record that the appellant received five blows whereas the deceased received only one. It is a case of private defence but the trial court wrongly held that the appellant exceeded the right thereof. It is submitted by the counsel that during scuffle, the appellant is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb, and thus he exercised his right of private defence. Injuries caused to the appellant itself show that that the appellant was on the verge of losing his life, had he not used force upon the deceased. In said context, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'™ble Apex Court in the case of Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2010) 2 SCC 333 as well as passed by High Court of Delhi in the case of Madan Singh Bishta Vs UOI & Ors. reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1083.
6. Further, he has also drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of prosecution witness namely Kanchedi Lal (PW-5), Bhalu @ Munna Lal (PW-6), Tijai (PW-7), Rambabu (PW-8), Dr. Shyam Manohar (PW- 11) and Dharmesh Dixit (PW-18), pointing out the discrepancies thereof. He submitted that complainant-Kanchedi Lal (PW-5) deposed that on the information received from Bhal
AI
Special circumstances exist mitigating the gravity of the offence, which appeals to our judicial conscience and discretion to show clemency to the accused in the matter of sentence.
The accused, as the initial aggressor, cannot claim self-defense against actions taken in response to his provocation, leading to the upheld conviction for murder.
The right of private defense is not available to an aggressor, and the evidence supported the conviction for murder and criminal trespass.
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....
A person may be convicted under culpable homicide when the intent to kill cannot be established, especially when the act occurs without premeditation during a heated altercation.
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
