Balram Vs. State of U.P.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 1988
With
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1164 of 1987
With
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1164 of 1987
Petitioner: Balram
Respondent: State of U.P.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 1988
With
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1164 of 1987
With
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1164 of 1987
Judges: M.P.THAKKAR & B.C.RAY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 29, 1988
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
Section 304 Part I – Victims accompanied by 16 companions had gone to the house of the appellant in the wake of an altercation which had taken place an hour before – Prosecution version that the victims along with their companion had gone to the appellant’s house to make peace was rightly rejected by the High Court – Appellant had right of private defence but he exceeded it – Conviction altered from section 302 to section 304 Part I.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. While the Trial Court was in error in taking the extreme view that the appellant deserved to be acquitted as he had acted in exercise of right of private defence, the High Court was also in error in reaching the extreme conclusion that the appellant had no right of private defence at all in the circumstances of the case. The High Court has overlooked the fact that Matadin, father of the appellant, sustained injuries in the course of the incident which occurred at the house of the appellant. The victims accompanied by about 16 companions had gone to the house of the appellant in the wake of an altercation which has taken place about an hour or so before the occurrence. The version of the prosecution that the victims and their companions about 16 in number had gone to the house of the appellant in order to make peace with him has merely to be stated to be rejected. The Trial Court was wholly right in rejecting this unnatural and improbable version outright. The High Court failed to take into account the fact that there was no occasion for the victims and their companions to go to the house of the appellant. When there was the occasion of marriage at their place and they were busy with arrangements for reception of the bridal party, it is inconceivable that they would have gone to the house of the appellant just in order to appease them. The version of the prosecution itself is that the complainant’s party was angry and was feeling offended and had complained against the appellant to the local Zamindar (Lal Suresh Singh) in regard to the incident of the morning when the appellant had accidentally damaged the marriage pandal while driving a truck. Umesh Chandra the brother of the appellant was asked to pay compensation for the damage caused to the pandal, by the Zamindar but he did not accede to this demand. The complainant and the members of the family were agitated and angry at what happened and they were also disturbed by reason of the fact that Umesh Chandra and the appellant had not acceded to the demand to pay compensation. That is why, such is the version of the prosecution itself, they had gone to the house of the Zamindar once again and had proceeded to the house of the appellant in the company of about 16 persons. Taking an overall view of the circumstances pertaining to the occurrence, there is no manner of doubt that the victims and their companions had gone to the house of the appellant with aggressive intentions to say the least of it. Due weight was also required to be accorded to the version of the defence that the members of the complainant’s party who had marched to the house of the appellant were carrying arms and that the Zamindar had a gun with him. And that Matadin, the father of the appellant had sustained injuries at the appellant’s house. Nor can it be over-looked that even according to the evidence of the witnesses of the Prosecution the appellant and the members of his family had run back into their house and closed the door. This shows that they had become panicky. It is ununderstandable as to why the victims and their companions did not go back even thereafter. Under the circumstances, the High Court was not justified in accepting the version of the prosecution that they had gone to the house of the appellant to make peace at its face value. The prosecution version is a totally incredible version. The Trial Court, was therefore, partially right in taking the view that there was an occasion for the exercise of the right of private defence on the part of the appellant. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the consequences of the occurrence, we are satisfied that while the appellant had a right of private defence, he had exceeded it. Under the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant deserves to be altered from one under Section 302 of I.P.C. to one under Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. The sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the High Court must accordingly be set aside as the conviction under Section 302 has been set aside. So far as the conviction under Section 304 Part I is concerned, we are of the view that ends of justice will be served if the appellant is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The appeal is disposed accordingly.
1. While the Trial Court was in error in taking the extreme view that the appellant deserved to be acquitted as he had acted in exercise of right of private defence, the High Court was also in error in reaching the extreme conclusion that the appellant had no right of private defence at all in the circumstances of the case. The High Court has overlooked the fact that Matadin, father of the appellant, sustained injuries in the course of the incident which occurred at the house of the appellant. The victims accompanied by about 16 companions had gone to the house of the appellant in the wake of an altercation which has taken place about an hour or so before the occurrence. The version of the prosecution that the victims and their companions about 16 in number had gone to the house of the appellant in order to make peace with him has merely to be stated to be rejected. The Trial Court was wholly right in rejecting this unnatural and improbable version outright. The High Court failed to take into account the fact that there was no occasion for the victims and their companions to go to the house of the appellant. When there was the occasion of marriage at their place and they were busy with arrangements for reception of the bridal party, it is inconceivable that they would have gone to the house of the appellant just in order to appease them. The version of the prosecution itself is that the complainant’s party was angry and was feeling offended and had complained against the appellant to the local Zamindar (Lal Suresh Singh) in regard to the incident of the morning when the appellant had accidentally damaged the marriage pandal while driving a truck. Umesh Chandra the brother of the appellant was asked to pay compensation for the damage caused to the pandal, by the Zamindar but he did not accede to this demand. The complainant and the members of the family were agitated and angry at what happened and they were also disturbed by reason of the fact that Umesh Chandra and the appellant had not acceded to the demand to pay compensation. That is why, such is the version of the prosecution itself, they had gone to the house of the Zamindar once again and had proceeded to the house of the appellant in the company of about 16 persons. Taking an overall view of the circumstances pertaining to the occurrence, there is no manner of doubt that the victims and their companions had gone to the house of the appellant with aggressive intentions to say the least of it. Due weight was also required to be accorded to the version of the defence that the members of the complainant’s party who had marched to the house of the appellant were carrying arms and that the Zamindar had a gun with him. And that Matadin, the father of the appellant had sustained injuries at the appellant’s house. Nor can it be over-looked that even according to the evidence of the witnesses of the Prosecution the appellant and the members of his family had run back into their house and closed the door. This shows that they had become panicky. It is ununderstandable as to why the victims and their companions did not go back even thereafter. Under the circumstances, the High Court was not justified in accepting the version of the prosecution that they had gone to the house of the appellant to make peace at its face value. The prosecution version is a totally incredible version. The Trial Court, was therefore, partially right in taking the view that there was an occasion for the exercise of the right of private defence on the part of the appellant. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the consequences of the occurrence, we are satisfied that while the appellant had a right of private defence, he had exceeded it. Under the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant deserves to be altered from one under Section 302 of I.P.C. to one under Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. The sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the High Court must accordingly be set aside as the conviction under Section 302 has been set aside. So far as the conviction under Section 304 Part I is concerned, we are of the view that ends of justice will be served if the appellant is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The appeal is disposed accordingly.
