A person faced with injury with a deadly weapon to his life cannot be expected to weigh in balance the precise force needed to avoid danger. No doubt normally the right of private defence is not available to either of the parties in incidents of group fighting, but that is not a rule without exception.-2015 S.C. msklawreports


  A person faced with injury with a  deadly  weapon  to  his  life  cannot  be
expected to weigh in balance the  precise  force  needed  to  avoid  danger.

No doubt normally the right of private defence is not  available  to  either
of the parties in incidents of group  fighting,  but  that  is  not  a  rule
without exception.-2015 S.C. msklawreports

Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC reads as under: -
"Exception 2.-Culpable homicide is  not  murder  if  the  offender,  in  the
exercise in good faith  of  the  right  of  private  defence  of  person  or
property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of  the
person  against  whom  he  is  exercising  such  right  of  defence  without
premeditation, and  without  any  intention  of  doing  more  harm  than  is
necessary for the purpose of such defence."

 It  is  settled
principle of law that in  the  cases  of  free  fights  accused  are  to  be
fastened with individual liability taking into  consideration  the  specific
role assigned to each one of them, and normally right of private defence  is
not available in such cases unless circumstances in  a  given  case  warrant
so.

 In the case at hand,  
we  have  a  special  circumstance
where the injured person (appellant no. 1) who was given 2cm x 2cm  x  1.5cm
deep knife blow  on  his  back  (scapular  region)  has  retorted  by  using
licensed firearm, and killed  one  of  his  rivals  in  the  same  incident.
Accused/appellant Pathubha Govindji has taken plea of private defence  right
from beginning of the trial.  
From the judgment of the trial court also,  it
is clear that the plea of private defence was taken by the  appellant  no.1.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and evidence  on
record, it is evident that accused/appellant no.1 Pathubha  Govindji  Rathod
who suffered knife injury in the incident has caused death  of  one  of  the
deceased  by  firing  several  shots  thereby  exceeding  right  of  private
defence.  Injuries suffered by both the sides are on record.
In the above circumstances, from the evidence, as discussed  above,  we  are
inclined to accept the argument that it is a case of culpable  homicide  not
amounting to murder covered  under  Exception  2  of  Section  300  of  IPC.
Therefore, after  weighing  the  submissions  of  learned  counsel  for  the
parties and going through the papers on record, we are of the  opinion  that
appeal of the  accused/appellant  no.  1  deserves  to  be  allowed  partly.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the  conviction  and  sentence
recorded against accused/appellant no.1 under  Section  302  IPC  read  with
Section 149 IPC is set aside.  
Instead he (accused/appellant  no.1  Pathubha
Govindji Rathod) is convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced  to
imprisonment for a period of ten years and directed to pay fine of Rs.5000/-
, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment  for  a
further period of six months.  He is reported to have undergone  nine  years
and six months of imprisonment.  He shall serve out       unserved  part  of
the   sentence.    
The   conviction   and    sentence    recorded    against
accused/appellant no. 2 Hemubha Govindji Rathod under  Section  304  Part  I
read with Section 149 IPC, does not require any interference.
The appeal stands disposed of. -2015 S.C. msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

T.P.Act - Registered sale deed coupled with an agreement of re conveyance - for a transaction to constitute mortgage by conditional sale, it is necessary that the condition is embodied in the document that purports to effect the sale . But not when   Sale Deed dated 14.06.1972 and  Agreement of re conveyance dated 14.06.1972 having been executed on the same day and both ought to be read together and when the Sale Deed was executed only as a security for the loan and it was never the intention of the 1st respondent-plaintiff to convey the suit property. Since 1st respondent- plaintiff has paid back the loan amount i.e. Rs.6,700/- as is evident from the subsequent Agreement dated 05.06.1974, the Courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings of fact that  Sale Deed is not binding on the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Once repayment was made, the 1st respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the declaration as prayed for no need to ask for  cancellatio...
Read more

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act-exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act.-Under Notification No.17/2001, that the benefit of duty exemption is available only for the import of the plant in full either in CKD or SKD condition. - The subject import can be considered only as a part of the plant.-Therefore, the goods under import are not eligible for the duty exemption as provided under the Notification No.17/2001.-what was imported was not a hot mix plant but only certain parts of such plant and, therefore, the exemption notification would not apply. -It is settled law that statements made to an Officer of Customs are admissible in evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.In the present case, both the oral evidence and the documentary evidence ultimately lead to the same conclusion: namely, that what was imported was not a hot mix plant that was complete in itself. - But not an unassembled Hot Mix Plant -have no application to an exemption notification which is issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS

The appellant entered into a Joint Venture  Agreement  with  M/s            Shapoorji  Pallonji  &  Company  Limited  for  the  purpose   of            construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  The Joint            Venture  was  awarded  a  contract  by  the  National   Highways            Authority of India for construction of roads as a  part  of  the            Golden Quadrilateral, Phase-2 Project in Andhra Pradesh. The description reads  :  "Hot                  mix plant batch type with electronic controls and bag  type                  filter arrangement 160 tons per hour capacity." ...
Read more