Case: Ghunnu and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

bone. Injury 24 is incised would spindle shaped 6 inches x 3/4 inch semilunar in shape at the level just below lateral malleolus of right leg. The third injury was on the top of the right little finger of the right foot. At 4 p.m., the doctor examined Devi Prasad, PW 1 and found on him four injuries. All the injuries were simple in nature. Hira Lal, PW 3 also had four simple injuries. The post mortem disclosed 16 injuries on the person of Lalta Prasad. According to the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of injury to the skull bones and injuries to the brain and lung. An examination of the injuries on the side of prosecution reveals that Lalta Prasad died due to fracture of skull bone and injuries to the brain and lung while Thakur Prasad sustained as many as 28 injuries, although simple, except injuries 17, 24 and 28. The grievous injuries were fractures of a finger in the right hand and a toe in the foot.11-12. The injuries that were found on the appellants may now be noted Lachhman had one grievous injury, incised wound 2 1/2 inches x 3/4 inch on the upper end of left forearm on its posterior aspect cutting the ulna bone underneath oblique in direction. The injuries according to the doctor were caused by some sharp-edged weapon. The appellant, Madhu had three injuries : (1) Three lacerated marginal circular wounds 1/10 inch x 1/10 inch x skin deep in area of 4 inches x 3 inches on the front of thigh at its middle 1/3rd. (2) Three lacerated marginal circular wounds 1/10 inch x 1/10 inch x skin deep in area of 4 inches x 3 inches on the front and outer side of left leg on its upper 1/3rd. (3) Three lacerated marginal circular wounds 1/10 inch x 1/10 inch x 1/10 skin deep tone on inner side and one on inner side of right foot. These injuries were caused by some firearm pellets. The appellant, Behari had two injuries on his person : (1) Two lacerated marginal circular wounds 1/10 inch x 1/10 inch x skin deep in area of 4 inches x 2 inches on the back left forearm at its upper 1/4th. (2) One lacerated marginal circular wound 1/10 inch x 1/10 inch x skin deep on the outer side of the left foot. These injuries were caused by some firearm pellets. Burn marks were not found. Dhunnu had four injuries on his person. Injuries 3 and 4 are marginal circular wound 1/10 inch x 1/10 inch x skin deep, probably due to pellets. Devi had three injuries on his person and according to the doctor were caused by firearm pellets. Kishori Lal had two injuries and according to the doctor were caused by firearm pellets. Thus it will be seen, while appellant, Lachhman had a grievous incised pellets, cutting the ulna bone, the other five appellants, Madhu, Behari, Dhunnu, Devi and Kishori Lal had gunshot injuries caused by pellets. 13. According to the version given by the prosecution in the First Information Report, the accused, armed with various weapons, emerged out of the sugar-cane field, began to assault Thakur Prasad and Lalta Prasad and at that time Lalta Prasad, in order to save his life, having taken out the pistol, tried to fire it and the pistol gave noise. This version of the prosecution would indicate that the pistol was fired at close range. Though five persons were injured according to the prosecution, only one shot was fired but the courts below found it to be likely that at least two shots were fired. Taking into account the spread of the pellets and the injury on five persons in various parts of the body, we agree with the courts below that at least two shots would have been fired. Probabilities are that shots were fired from a distance for, otherwise it is unlikely that the pellets would have spread so as to injure five persons on various parts of their bodies. If the prosecution version is true that the firing was after the accused started assaulting Lalta Prasad and when they were at close range, the injuries from the pistol would have been of a different nature. There is no indication of any burning or scorching. On the other hand, the spreading of the pellets would indicate that the shots were fired from a distance. This circumstance would show that the prosecution story that the shot was fired at close range cannot be accepted. If it was fired from a distance, the question arises as to why it became necessary to fire. Though it cannot be stated, with certainty, it is quite probable that after the firing took place, the prosecution party was attacked. The 28 injuries found on Thakur Prasad and the injuries caused to Lalta Prasad would indicate that there was persistent beating by the accused though the attack might have taken place after the firing of the pistol. 14. On a careful consideration of the injuries found on the prosecution party as well as the accused, and the nature of the gunshot injuries, we find it impossible to reject the case of the defence that the attack by them followed the firing of the pistol. While what happened cannot be determined with certainty, we feel that this is a case in which the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. In the result, we find that the appellants caused injuries after the firing of at least two shots from the pistol. As 28 injuries were caused to Thakur Prasad and the skull bone of Lalta Prasad was fractured resulting in his death after the pistol had been snatched, it can be safely presumed that the accused exceeded their right of private defence and caused the injuries when there could have been no cause for apprehension that death or grievous injury would be caused to them.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]On a careful consideration of the injuries found on the prosecution party as well as the accused, and the nature of the gunshot injuries, we find it impossible to reject the case of the defence that the attack by them followed the firing of the pistol. While what happened cannot be determined with certainty, we feel that this is a case in which the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. In the result, we find that the appellants caused injuries after the firing of at least two shots from the pistol. As 28 injuries were caused to Thakur Prasad and the skull bone of Lalta Prasad was fractured resulting in his death after the pistol had been snatched, it can be safely presumed that the accused exceeded their right of private defence and caused the injuries when there could have been no cause for apprehension that death or grievous injury would be caused to them.