HH HH Rxdnce ese Sentenced to ..,. K may nder sectlon 5 0)” H) q r . U ? t 1s expame to the pnsoner that 1f e Staten or shes'to be reresente legal ctltloner the Appellate Court W11] not proceed w1th the base for seven days unles e legal practmoner appears If the legal practltloner does not appear w1th1n seve ays he may not heard at all If the prlsoner states that he does not w1sh to be repre- ented by legal practlttoner the court may proceed at once w1th the case and wrll not b obhed to lve a hearm to any leal ractltloner wo sould appea 141 w' , 1 «Dt pin r y Jdgt ae of Aplicato fo cop of uemen ate, o whic copreceve o wh App t \ .l .. . .' .7 etertte prsoner-Wses to e rpresented or not —‘ Yes / D n h yid;-’- Date n ich eal sen oather which a copy of Judement or order passed m the case for favour of trans tg g -- mtssxon to te proer Aera‘te Cr ay a oaflt‘m W) ate oreceipt it " D f n ‘ ate o rece1pt recor to accompany t C F00000’58 8 I ld h l‘ pd by a s ' ,. . n ‘ d s e g g g g p h h r V , Whhh iih b e No” h p ppll out m / D f d he .1— ;4 am W ' mmgv.‘m/ggw - ? .................................. ........... ’ _ m XI-HC-22 wwmm 3mm Cs; (7% 17:3? V m Wm wm w QHIWW 21-4-1994, The ma‘Her was repo Informa‘rion ,Reporf (EXP-8) was Sfafion: ChirMir‘i. , Affer regisfer I.P.C., Sub In‘spec‘ror J, Toppo ( and pf‘épgred fhz Panchnama (EXP- : body~ of Mangai was serrl' far pas? Cam-re, Chirmir‘i, where Dr; RR ”red in The Police Simian and‘fhe Firs'i‘ by lodged by Ramav‘l'ar- (PW 2) m Police mg The case under Section 302 of fhe PW 7) lef‘i for The scene of occurrence 3) of The body of deceased Mangah The morTem examinaTion To CommuniTy HeaiTh ' , on The body of’Ma‘ngal and prepare GaJbhIye (PW-4) conducTed post morTem plan (EXP-1) was-prepared by The soi! and carp'erifer-‘s axe were fake Weapon of offencé axe was Taken [of fhe memorandum (EXP-6) given .v Affer' comple‘rion of inveS‘Hg of ‘Addifional Chief Judicial M commH'ted the case f0 The Sessi .AddiTional Sessions Judge,"Mdnendhagarh, receivedThecase on Transfer for ‘ friaL The pmsecufion in order examined seven’ wifnesses. S’rafe‘ 'SecTion 313 of The \Cr.P:C. in whit sfafed fhaf he is innocent d The posT morTem reporT (Ex P 3) SiTe Haika PcTwari Piam soil blood sTamed :n‘ inTo possessions under Exs.P 1V& P 2. inTo possession under EXP-5 in pursuance by The accused .’ :Tion, charge sheeT was filed in The CaUrT agisTraTe, Manendragarh, who in Turn ms Judge, Surgdja, from where‘learned To ~esTablish charge, againsT The accused nenT of The accused was recorded under h he denied The prosecuTion/ evidence and \ [11% WT f1 y x1»Hc.22- 3mm Wm 73.$ .. 3 m : Wim Pq'rm mmmvfw a 3’~ %a?fiana1T%¥1 AT fhe conclusion of Trial and affer' hearing counSél for The par-fig,- iearned ’Addifional Sessions Judge' wnvic’fed and senfenced ihe‘aécused as mem‘ioned inpara 1_of This Judgment “Wevhave heard Mr. Vijay Kumar‘ Pahdeygie‘amed counsel fo'r The ' appellan‘i‘ ‘an’d Mr U N 5 *Deo ieanned Addifionai Pubiic Prasec'ufor wi‘l’h Mr IMP 5 Bha‘ha learned Panel Lamer on behalf of The S'lal'e/responden‘l‘ and perused the Judgmem & record of fhe frml Court The homicidal deal-h of Mung :l-is no? in dispu're. / Learned counsel for- Th‘e ap lan‘l‘ argued Tha‘l‘ if is evrden‘l’ from fhe eVIdence of prosecu‘hon mfness R movfar (PW 2) The? The deceased was chasing The accused while earrymg carpenTer-s axe In his hand and in order To proTecT himself The accused en ered The house of RamavTar where The ,. accused & The deceased sTarTed gr. ppling and in ThaT process The accused in order To defend himself, aTTack The deceased wiTh The axe, as The . accused was having reasonable appr hensiorl inihis mind ThaT unless he aTTack The deceased; he is likely To c use his deaTh by‘ assaulTing WiTh‘ The 1 g ’ ' carpenTer's axe Therefore The a cused acTed in righT of privaTe defence and no offence againsT The accused s made ouT O'n‘The oTher: handglearned ' ddiTional Public’ProsecuT'o’rand-learned _ Panel Lawyer supporTed The judgmen fo’f The Trial‘CourT. ' NoThing is an offence in Te ms of SecTion 96 of The Indian Penal Code, if iT is done in exercise of T e, righT of privaTe defence. SecTion 99 ,[Hl%%li§%' er. - p l e XI-HC—22 of fhe I.P.C. layé down‘fhe limi‘t' therefor The righ‘l‘ conferred upon' a person in Terms‘of SecTionsi96 To 98 and 100 To 106 is conTrolled by secfion 99, Iri férms of Sec‘rion 99 of fhe Indian Pena! Code The mgh? of private defence, in no case, exfe1ds to mfhcfmg of more harm fhan rr Is ‘of defence. ’ Seal-ion 100 provides tha‘r fhe righ‘r of priva‘re defence of, he body exfends under fheresrric‘l'lions men‘lioned in fhe lasf preceding 5e fion “to fhe- voluntary causing of’ dea1'h 'or of any ofher harm 'l‘o fhe assal an‘r If fhe offence which occasmns The exercise of fhe rughf be of any of The descrrphons enumera‘red were"; ' namely, ”Firsf - Such an assauh' may reasonably cause fhe-apprehenswn fhaf deafh w.“ ofherwlse be The consequence of such ossauh‘ Secondly - Such an assaulf as may reasonably cause The apprehension fhaf grievous hurf w!!! ofhermse be fhe consequenc of such ossauh" Ta claim a rugh'r of 3prwa+e defence exfendmg To volu fury causmg of deafh the accused musf' show fhaf fhere were circumsfan es glvmg rise To reasonabie grounds for apprehending fhaf en'her dea‘fh o grievous hurt would be caused fo hlm The burden m This behalf ls on fh accused Sec‘hon 102 of The I deals WITh The commencemenT and conTmuance of The rIghT of prwaT defence of body The rlghT of prwaTe defence of The body commences s soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger To The body arises from an aTTempT or ThreaT To commIT The offence alThough The offence o ‘necess'ory' fo inflicf for ‘rhe ‘purp noT have been commITTed, buT. noT unTIl ‘ P m excessive force he 'wou‘d be ccnvicfed under Seétion‘\ 304 of The I.P.C. However i‘he mgh‘r of prwafe defence cannaf be claimed when fhe’r accused is aggressor In _Seknr alids Raio Sekhn vs Sta'l’e represenfed by Inspecfor of Police T'N' reporfed in (2002) 56C 354 1-he Apex Cour? has observed fha‘r “m order- fo find whefher m hf of pmvafe defence Is available or nof fhe InJur-les receives by The accu d fhe Imminence of ‘l'hr'eaT 1‘0 his safety, The mJurIes caused by fhe accwsed and the cwcumsfances whefher fhe accused hadejlme To have recourse 1’0 public authorifies or all relevari‘l' factors To be considered”. In» Laxman singh vs. Poonan Singh and othersreporj'ed in 2003 AIR SCW 456b, ll'ie Apex Cour‘l' held > l‘haf‘“where The/righfaof privafe defence is pleaded; fhe defence must be a reasonable and probable version safisfying ~ The Court fha‘l‘ the harm caused by The accused was necesSary for ’eiTher ' warding off The aTTaek lor‘ r foresTalling The furTh'er reasonable apprehension from The side of Th accused. The burden of esTablishing The plea of self defence i5 on The ac used and The burden sTands discharged by showmg preponderance of probabi iTies in favour of ThaT plea on The basis of The maTerial on record” Again in The maTTer of 5 Te of M P vs Ramesh reporTed In 2005 Alk 5C 1186, The Apex CourT held ThaT “privaTe defence can be used To’ ward off unlawful force,\'To p evenTy' unlawful force,-To’ avoid unlawful deTenTion and To eseape from suc deTenTion“. Xl—HC-22 " :o - XI—HC—22 . mmmm . g74.", / ”mi—aw [gaméwmr’ M‘wm V 7 Applying the above principlesof law, now we shaH .Iscnu‘rinize the facfs ‘ a and evidence availabk 9n rgcord in Thévinsfnnf case. ‘Sfar- wi’rness of fhe case RamavfarfPW—Z)’ in whqse presence and in whose house fhe inciden‘i' Tack ce. He has s’fa’i‘ed‘ in his evidence fhaf in fhe ei/ening,‘ he was p'iay‘ing wifh his son and his wife was making arrangemeni for'dinner', a‘r’ 1‘ha'i' fi e, fhe accused came running Ta hishouse ,carr‘ying axe ‘in his hand deceése Mangal was chasing fhe accused Earrying carpenTers axe in his hand and b Th of Them sTarTed grappling He asked them noi' to quarrel Even wives f boi'h fhe accused & The deceased also came and They also Tried To inTe Vene buT The accused & The deceased did' Hno‘r accede fa Them reques‘r In 7 e mean hme accused Devrqj affacked Mangcl :wiTh The axe Thereaf er' he lefT The house and called The rvillagers In cross examinm'nan f This wn-ness he has sfa‘red Thai‘ The deceased was broTher in iaw (W) of The accused He furTher sTaTed ThaT i The deceased came running Wifh T e carpenTer‘s axe chasmg The accused To‘ kill him and The accused enTered ThaT process They grappled wiTh e ch oTher and The accused assaulTed The ,deceased wtfh fhe axe Therefore, in View of Ther' bove evidence of'Ramav’Tar (PW-2),, Th accused came running carrying a in his hand whereas The deceased ‘was ‘ chasing The accused havmg carpe Ters axe in his hand and boTh sTarTed grappling in The house of This wiTn ss (PW 2) where The ‘accused aTTacked ' l s house in order To proTecT himself in {new}, ' i la i e x . XI—HC-22 W7? 9g mm Wmfiwm $‘mwm mmmww A g h " fhe deceased wifh The axe As per *he medical ewdence of Dr R R GQbhIye (PW 4) The deceased re¢ewed followmg mJumes — ‘ 1. ‘ mevsed wound In fhe ‘slze of 4" x 1" x 1" Inside fhe righ'r hand on eibow: 2. 4%“ x 2" x 2" incised wound on Ief‘l‘ side of fhe chesf above the mpple ~ as a’ result .of which ’r-ib was cut and fhe par-1- of lung sfarfed r profruding from fha‘r place '3. '2" x 2” in oval shape 'iacermed' from The fop. (parie'i‘ai) bone of The a skuii & 4. 2" 1" on Lef‘r side so puiar surface The doafor‘ further sfa‘red 'iha‘i‘ on dissechon of fhe body I1- was found 'i'haf ief‘i‘ lung was inJured a d 2“ & 3rd ribs were found cu‘i Excep‘i' mJury No 3 remaining mJuries c n be caused by a sharp edged weapon . Imumes were 2 3 days old AH he mJur-Ies were dangerous m na~rure and sufficien‘f In The ordinary course f nafure fo cause deafh The deceased died on accounf of shock If is True 'l‘haf ‘l'he dec ased was chasing the accused” carrying carpenfers axe in his hand As her The eVIdence boTh sTarTed grappling, l buT in ThaT process The accused has noT received even a single inJury,’ whereas The accused repeaTedly caused four grievous inJuries on ViTal parTs of The body of The deceased. which indicaTes ThaT The accused did noT stop afTer causing oneor Two injuries :ind hevrepeaTedly caused four inJuries, as ’ The 'accused‘had" noT susTained any injury, iT means on The firsTrblow of axe /7 a '[Iiiséi‘a's Xi-HC‘ZZ ~ . gammg‘fm? am m WW6? {2%. . .............................................. a ................... mw m WW../ii m mm mw mmmwa Q m K WW£twm 1. ' ammm J ‘ ing‘Heafh.’ Accordingly, ‘we éogvicf fhe Pan-I'of me mic... ' ’arfly succeeds and fhe same Is par‘l'ly‘ d of charge under Sec‘hon 302 of ?he_ rarded under fha‘l' Secflon are sef aside er Sechon 304 Parf-I of fhe I.P.C. and senfenced fo undergo RI for fe years The accused is said fa be'in‘ detenhon smee 20m June, 1994 ‘dea'th %f ho'f"fhe infenfion of cam accused/nppeiian‘r under Sec'hgn 304 In The resulf the appeal g ‘ ‘aHowed The accused Is acqume I P C and conwchon & senfence av 1ns1'ead ‘rh‘ereof he Is conwcfed un hlch has naf been dispufed by iearned - Addmonal Pubhe Prosecutor *her by, the accused has atready served out more than 11 years Jail senfence required in any ofher cgse. I l Parfies are enfifled for oer? sap \ L.C. BHADOO > /’/ ‘ y l Judge " \\ ”u l He be sef a1- hber‘ry fer‘fhwfh if nof [fied copy ’af fhis order. ' d ' ‘ Sd/~ ‘ 1 Dhirendra Mishraii *g‘: Judge m7 i, ‘9“6 —L’ 1 e Nw xi-HC-22