Naranjan Singh Vs. Kuldip Singh & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 1989
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.8.86 of the Punjab & Har-yana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 397-DB of 1985)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.8.86 of the Punjab & Har-yana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 397-DB of 1985)
Petitioner: Naranjan Singh
Respondent: Kuldip Singh & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 1989
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.8.86 of the Punjab & Har-yana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 397-DB of 1985)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.8.86 of the Punjab & Har-yana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 397-DB of 1985)
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 09, 1997
Appearances:
Ms. Sudharsh Menon, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. M.R. Sharma, Senior Advocate, Ms. Anjana Sharma, Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Mr. M.R. Sharma, Senior Advocate, Ms. Anjana Sharma, Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Indian Penal Code
Section 302 – Acquittal of respondent by High Court holding as a fact that K respondent was not present and could not take any part in assault of deceased – Accepting finding of fact by High Court, the finding of High Court is not to be interfered with – No question of exceeding right of private defence – Appeal dis-missed.
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI, J.:
1. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the judgment of the High Court, we find that the view taken by the High Court is quite reasonable and, therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court.
2. The Trial Court believed the evidence regarding presence of accused Kuldip Singh and his participation in the assault on the deceased. The High Court on the other hand has not believed his presence at the time of the incident. This is a finding of fact and we have now to proceed on that basis. Once it is accepted that he was not present, obviously he could not have taken any part in the assault on the deceased and, therefore, the question of exceeding the right of private defence can not arise. For this reason, the appeal is dismissed.
1. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the judgment of the High Court, we find that the view taken by the High Court is quite reasonable and, therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court.
2. The Trial Court believed the evidence regarding presence of accused Kuldip Singh and his participation in the assault on the deceased. The High Court on the other hand has not believed his presence at the time of the incident. This is a finding of fact and we have now to proceed on that basis. Once it is accepted that he was not present, obviously he could not have taken any part in the assault on the deceased and, therefore, the question of exceeding the right of private defence can not arise. For this reason, the appeal is dismissed.
