N Criminal Appeal Nos273 74 of 1980
From the Judgment and Order dated 1911980 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl
A Nos
107 of 1970 and 1 of 1971
468 RL Kohli and KC Kohli for the Appellants
Uma Nath Singh for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J
Bhagwan Swaroop was charged under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Man Singh and under Section 307 IPC for an attempt to murder Shahid
He was further charged under section 451 IPC for committing trespass and also under section 25 A of Arms Act
Ramswaroop father of Bhagwan Swaroop was charged under sections 109302 451 IPC and 29 of the Arms Act
Ramswaroop was acquitted of all the charges by the trial court
Bhagwan Swaroop was however convicted under section 302 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life
He was acquitted of the other two charges
The appeal filed by Bhagwan Swaroop was dismissed by the High Court
The High Court allowed the State appeal and further convicted Bhagwan Swaroop under section 307 IPC and section 25 A Arms Act
He was sentenced to five years and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively for the said offences
This appeal before us by way of special leave is by Bhagwan Swaroop against his conviction and sentence on the three counts
Deceased Man Singh was the son of Shahjor Singh and brother of Babusingh
They were living in the house owned by Ramswaroop and his sons
There was dispute between the parties regarding a piece of land which according to the accused the complainant party was forcibly occupying
A notice had been served upon Shahjor Singh by the accused to vacate the said encroachment
According to the prosecution on May 11 1969 at about 245 pm accused Ramswaroop had an altercation with Babusingh at a place called Gauri and thereafter he rushed the complainant party and started dismantling the tin shed in the disputed land
Shahjor Singh sent his son Babusingh to the police station to lodge a report
Meanwhile Man Singh deceased came at the spot and gave a push to Ramswaroop who as a result fell down
He got up immediately and shouted for his son Bhagwan Swaroop and asked him to bring the rifle and kill the complainant party
Bhagwan Swaroop rushed to his house brought a gun and fired a shot hitting Man Singh
Bhagwan Swaroop fired the second shot which hit Shahid
Man Singh fell down and thereafter complainant Shahjor Singh took out a lathi and gave breathing to Ramswaroop
Man Singh succumbed to the gun shot injury
Both the accused denied the commission of the crime
Accused Ramswaroop stated in his examination as under 469 I found Babusingh gambling in my garden
I asked him as to why he is doing so in the garden he started abusing me
I slapped him
His father came there both of them abused me and then left the place
I told him that I will make the report of the incident to the police station
When I reached near the house of Shahjor Singh on my way to the Police Station he along with his sons caught me and started beating me with lathies
Shahjor Singh brought an axe when he was about to use his axe on me there was gun fire
 Accused Bhagwan Swaroop took the plea of alibi which has been rejected by both the courts below
We are of the view that the said plea was rightly rejected
The trial court did not believe the prosecution version in toto
The trial court found that the prosecution tried to indulge in exaggeration misrepresentation and at times suppression of facts without any meaning
The trial court further concluded as under The defence version that Babusingh was gambling alongwith others in the garden of the accused Ramswaroop appears correct
Ramswaroop went there and questioned Babusingh
There was altercation and use of hot words
Admittedly Shahjorsingh PW I came there and Babusingh accompanied him back to his house
Ramswaroop further stated in his examination that he gave one slap to Babusingh
Babusingh as PW9 stated that he was given three or four slaps by Ramswaroop
Thus the fact that Babusingh was slapped stand established in the case
The part of the prosecution story that the accused Ramswaroop rushed towards the house of Shahjor Singh and reached there before the arrival of Shahjor Singh was also dis believed by the trial court
Regarding the actual occurrence it is not disputed that Ramswaroop was given four simple injuries by the complainant
The prosecution case is that the injuries were given after the gun shot had been fired whereas the defence version is that the gun shot was fired while lathi injuries were being given to Ramswaroop
Trial court considered the statements of Banne Khan PW6 Shahid PW8 Sarfuddin PW11 Safaat Ahmad DW1 and Hamid Ahmed DW3 and came to the following conclusion Any way this one fact is clear from the evidence of these eye witnesses that Ramswaroop was put to beating then there was gun fire and Bhagwanswaroop was seen on the spot 470 The trial court on appreciation of the evidence produced by the prosecution and the complainants came to the conclusion that the following facts stood established from the evidence Ramswaroop came near the house of Shahjorsingh
There was exchange of abuses between Shahjorsingh and Ramswaroop
Ramswaroop tried to remove the tin shed of Gonda
He was pushed aside by Mansingh and then put to beating by lathies
 It was under these circumstances that Ramswaroop asked his son to fire the gun shot
The question for our consideration is whether on the facts of this case the appellant can claim right of private defence
The learned trial court came to the conclusion that since minor injuries were caused by the lathi there was no basis for entertaining a reasonable apprehension that Ramswaroop would be killed or hurt grievously and as such the plea of self defence was rejected
The High Court upheld the finding of the trial court in the following words No doubt the respondent Ramswaroop had injuries on his person
There were two simple injuries caused by hard and blunt object and the other two could be caused by fall for which there is definite prosecution evidence that the respondent Ramswaroop was pushed and he fell down
These injuries on him could not give rise to any apprehension of either grievous hurt or death
 We do not agree with the courts below
It is established on the record that Ramswaroop was being given lathi blows by the complainant party and it was at that time that gun shot was fired by Bhagwan Swaroop to save his father from further blows
A lathi is capable of causing a simple as well as a fatal injury
Whether in fact the injuries actually caused were simple or grievous is of no consequence
It is the scenario of a father being given lathi blows which has to be kept in mind and we are of the view that in such a situation a son could reasonably apprehend danger to the life of his father and his firing a gun shot at that point of time in defence of his father is justified
We therefore set aside the finding of the courts below on this point and hold that Bhagwan Swaroop fired the gun shot to defend the person of his father
The trial court on the basis of the evidence on the record including that of Dr Mukherjee PW5 came to the conclusion that only one shot was fired by Bhagwan Swaroop
According to the trial court Shahid was accidentally hit by the pellets spread by the gun shot
It was on these findings that trial court acquitted Bhagwan Swaroop of the charge 471 under 307 IPC
We agree with the trial court and hold that the High Court was not justified in reversing the same
The High Court further grossly erred in setting aside the acquittal of Bhagwan Swaroop under section 25 A of the Arms Act
Using the licensed gun of his father under the circumstances of this case cannot be considered possessing an arm without a licence
We agree with the reasoning and findings of the trial court and hold that High Court was not justified in setting aside the acquittal of Bhagwan Swaroop under Arms Act
For the reasons given above we allow the appeal set aside the conviction of appellant Bhagwan Swaroop under section 302 IPC 307 IPC and 25 Arms Act and acquit him on all these counts
He is already in bail
His bail bonds are discharged
VPR Appeal allowed


Summary:
Consequent upon the announcement of his MBBS Examination result on 12121990 the petitioner alongwith other 166 students applied for revaluation of answer books under University of Poona Ordinance 134A
When the revaluation results were declared certain students made representation to the University Authorities for their answer papers being revalued from the same set of examiners
The University on consideration of that representation appointed a Committee for scrutiny and to reasses theory papers of the students acquiring more than 20 marks after revaluation from senior teachers of the Faculty
After scrutiny it was found out that the marks are closer to the original marks in Medicine Surgery and Preventive and Social Medicine
The Committee therefore recommended that the entire revaluation of the papers should be cancelled
The Executive Council by a resolution cancelled the result of the revaluation and directed fresh revaluation and the second revaluation was done through the examiners outside the State and the result declared on the basis thereof
The peritioner and others challenged the aforesaid decision of the Executive Council cancelling the earlier revaluation and directing a second revaluation by means of writ petitions
It was contended before the High Court on behalf of the petitioners that the action of the Executive Council was arbitrary in as much as there was no malpractice fraud or anything objectionable to the revaluation as the examiners were chosen by the Vice Chancellor as enjoined under the Ordinance
Hence the cancellation of revaluation was not proper
The High Court repelled the two contentions advanced before it and dismissed the writ petitions
Hence this Petition for Special Leave to appeal
Dismissing the Petition for special leave to appeal this Court HELD In deciding the matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational institutions the Court should normally be 387 very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities should normally be left to their decision and the Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice
390 B Under Ordinance 134A the Vice Chancellor shall use his discretionary power to decide as to whether all the applications received from the candidates considered for revaluation or not
If as a result of revaluation of answer books the marks obtained by the candidate increase over the original marks by 10 or more then only the result of revaluation will be accepted by the University
388 C D Ordinance 146 is comprehensive enough to include revaluation also for further action
The fact that two examiners were also the members of the Committee which recommended for revaluation cannot result in any bias even if they had been directly concerned with the original evaluation
It is true that in the second revaluation also there had been some changes between the original valuation and the revaluation results
However it is not so glaring or demonstrably unconscionable as seen in the first revaluation
390 D