ae Indian Penal Code Case Briefs = DOWRY DEATH: 1. K Prema S Rao vy Y. Srinivasa Rao, 2002: The deceased Krishna Kumari, second daughter of PWI was married to Yadla Sri (hereinafter refered to as accused No. 1), on 26.6.1988. Accused No. 1 was employed a5 Branch Post Master in the village where the spouses lived jointly with the parents of accused No. 1. was a teacher, gave a cash dowry of besides gift of five acres of land "Pasupukumkuma." It is the bride by the father At the time of marriage father of the deceased, who Rupees fifteen thousand and jewels wroth fifteen thousand and a house site in the course of marriage ritual described as explained that this gift of land was in the nature of 'Stridhana’ given tot for her maintenance. ‘ed No. 1, husband of the deceased started ‘After three or four months of the marriage accus use site demanding from the deceased execution of a deed in his favour ofthe land and ho gifted to her. Refusal on the part of the deceased to meet the demand was the cause ofher continuous harassment. Taking advantage of his position as the Post Master in the village, ‘accused No. I never delivered mail sent to the deceased by her father and her sister Nagamani, Her younger sister after passing tenth class examination had to appear for Polytechnic Entrance Test. As a part of harassment of the deceased, accused No. | did not deliver the Entrance Card received from Kakatiya University addressed to the younger sister of the deceased which resulted in the former losing the admission to the test. “The deceased somebody was able to lay her hand on the leters addressed to her and which had been concealed by accused No. 1. On finding those letters, she handed over the same to her father. This incident led to extreme point of harassment. Accused No. 1 and his parents, accused Nos. 2-3, drove the deceased out from their house with stern warning to her to restore those letters. This incident of cruelty was so grave and unbearable that she committed suicide by consuming a poisonous insecticide Endo-Sulphan on 22.10.1989, PW4, who had witnessed the incident ofthe deceased having been driven out of the house the previous day, liso saw accused No. I taking deceased to the hospital at Madhira, PW4 informed about it to «father (PWI) of the deceased who rushed to the house of the accused to find Krishna Kumari, dead. The father then lodged a First Information Report, Ex.PI within eight hours on the same day. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304B, 306 and 498A~Evidence Act, 1872--Section 113A--Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973~-Sections 215 and 221--Dowry death--Subjecting women to cruelty-~Abetment of suicide--Ingredients of offence under Section 304B--No evidence of demand for dowry "soon before death"--Hence, offence under Section 304B not made out--However, since offence under Section 498A made out and accused convicted and sentenced--On same facts, offence under Section 306 also made out--Omission to frame charge under Section 306, .P.C. immaterial ~ Because alternative charge under Section “498A framed-~And Sections 215 and 221 take care of such situation--Hence, accused convicted under Section 306-And sentenced to 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 20,000 to be paid a Tiype text) age 1 Scanned with CamScannerIndian Penal Code Case Bri iefs Nos. ion and sentence of accused No. | upheld--Accused to parents of deceased lady--Con 2, Keshab Chandra Panda v. State, Ori 1994: fas Chema Kar (hereinafier referred 10 25 the ;esensions surfaced between them, fulfilment of demands for dowry ‘ased with an iron red on 2-6- On 15-1- 1989, the accused and Pravatini ali ‘deceased’ entered into wedlock, Subsequently, some di which according to prosecution was on account of non ade at the time of marriage. The accused assaulted the dece nae 1989, which led to lodging of information at Kuakhia Out-Post on 3: 1989. A Station Diary Entry was made, An effort was made to bring about amity between the accused and deceased. ‘After along stay in the house of er parents, the deveased returned t0 the household of her husband, after a decision was taken by the well-wishers of parties at @ meeting on 28-1-1990, that they should find out their differences and live together. On 5-3-1991, accused brought the deceased to the house of her parents and loft her there, with a promise to take her back after few days, Ultimately deceased sent tothe house of accused om 24° 3-1991. On 26 3- 1991 her relatives were informed about tha she had expired. They suspected foul play and set into motion, Investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof ccharge-sheet Was submitted and accused faced trial for commission of offence punishable Under Section 304B IPC. ian Penal Code, 1860 - Additional Sessions Criminal - Conviction - Section 304B of Indi pellant was liable for Judge convicted Appellant - Hence, this Appeal - Whether, accused/AP dffence of dowry death - Held, there was no material on record to show that accused subjected deceased to cruelty which was of such nature as to drive her f9 contm it suicide - Further in FIR there was no mention about any demand of dowry by accused - There was nothing in evidence of PWs | and 4to show that deceased made grievance of eruely or nce took place - Prosecution had to rule out possibility of natural or ccurring otherwise than in harassment before occurrer accidental death so as to bring case within purview of death oc - Prosecution failed as assault by iron rod, made much earlier than normal circumstance: Section 498A of Code - Appeal “occurrence took place so it could not make out a case under allowed. 3. Kansraj v State of Punjab, 2000: 1985 was found dead on 23rd October, 1988 at the Punjab, The death was found to have occurred not under On post-mortem it was found ‘Sunita Kumari married on 9th July, residence of her in-laws at Batala in the ordinary circumstances but was the result of the asphy: that the deceased had injuries on her person including the ligature mark 20 cm x 2 em on the font, right and left side of neck, reddish brown in colour starting from left side of neck, 2 em below the left angle of jaw passing just above the thyroid cartilage and going upto a point 2 em below the right angle of jaw. The parents ofthe deceased were allegedly not informed about her death. It was a shocking occasion for Ram Kishan, PWS when he came to deliver ‘some customary presents to her sister on the occasion of Karva Chauth, a fast observed by ren for the safety and long life of their husbands, when he found the dead body married wom (Type text] ———=—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—— [Type text] Page 2 Scanned with CamScannerIndian Penal Code Case Briefs of his sister Sunita lying atthe entrance room and the respondents were making preparations for her cremation. Noticing ligature marks on the neck of her sister, Ram Kishan PWS telephonically informed his parents about the death and himself went to the police station 10 lodge a report Exh, PF. On the basis of the statement of PWS a case under Section 306 IPC ‘was registered against the respondents. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 304B, 306 and 498A-Dowry death-Death within three years and three months of marriage not under ordinary circumstances but as result of asphyxia-Convietion and sentence of accused persons under various counts under Sections 304B, 306 and 498-Acquittal by High Court-Validity-Husband's brother, mother and sister- in-law-Cannot be alleged to be involved in commission of crime and rightly acquitted by High Court-No evidence worth name against them-However, there is reliable, egal and cogent evidence to connect respondent No. 2 husband with commission of crime-Established that death of deceased by suicide occurred within 7 years of her marriage-Death cannot be said to have occurred in normal circumstances-Expression "normal circumstances" ‘Apparently means not natural death-Relying upon minor discrepancies and some omissions High Court wrongly acquitting accused husband-Charges against him proved beyond reasonable doubt-Judgment of trial court regarding conviction of accused husband upheld- But sentence reduced-Acquittal of other respondent by High Court confirmed. For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications, such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is ikely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over ‘enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused. 4, Rajesh Bhatnagar v. State of Uttarakhand, 2012: ‘The facts, as they appear from the record of the case, are that Ms. Renu (deceased) was daughter of Smt. Vimla Devi Bhatnagar, widow of Rajbahadur, resident of Mohalla Kayasthwada, Sikandrabad, Police Station Bulandshahar. Vimla Devi had sought a marriage alliance for her daughter Ms, Renu. Finally, the mother of Ms. Renu and Mukesh's family had agreed to alliance of marriage between Mukesh and Renu. When the engagement (sagai) ceremony was to be performed at the house of Mukesh, family of Ms. Renu along with their relations, Sanjay Bhatnagar, Shailendera Bhatnagar and Ors. had gone to the house of Mukesh. At that time itself, Mukesh, his brother Rajesh and his mother Kailasho (all the accused) demanded a refrigerator as dowry. The mother and relations of the deceased expressed their inability to buy a refrigerator but their request brought no results and the accused family pressurized them to pay Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing the refrigerator then and there. Upon persuasion by their own relations, the family of Ms. Renu paid a sum of Rs, Dee eee Type text] hs Scanned with CamScanner— Indian Penal Code Case Briefs ———— whereafter the ceremony Was ed as per abad to ming the 10.000/- to Rajesh Bhatnagar for purchasing the refrigerator. performed. On 26th May. 1994, the marriage between the parties was solemniz: Hindu rites at Roorkee. The family of Ms. Renu had come to Roorkee from Sikandr Perform the marriage at Roorkee to the convenience of the boy's family. After perfor ‘marriage, Ms, Renu went to her matrimonial home while her other family members came back to their house at Sikandrabad (Bulandshahar). Not even one and a half months of the ‘marriage had elapsed but Mukesh is stated to have brought Renu to her parental home, where he informed her family that a television and a cooler had not been given as dowry in the ‘marriage and these articles should be given immediately. If this was not done, he would not take Renu back to her matrimonial home. The members of Renu's family tried to impress "upon Mukesh not to pressurize them so much, but Mukesh persisted with his demands. At that time, Ms Renu also informed her family members that all the accused persons were beating her frequently for not bringing television and cooler as part of the dowry. However, left with no alternative, the mother and uncle of Ms. Renu assured Mukesh that everything would be settled and he need not worry. However, the television and cooler were not given at that time. The behavior of the accused towards Ms. Renu did not change and whenever she ‘came to her parental home, she complained about the behavior of her in-laws and demands of dowry from them. She even wrote letters to her family from time to time complaining of cruel behavior of the accused towards her. In May 1995, Ms. Renu gave birth to a male child. On 18th October, 1995, unfortunately, the father of Ms. Renu expired and thereafter the family was not able to meet the dowry demands raised by the accused persons. Sometime in the second week of November 1995, Ms. Renu came to her parental home at 11.00 p.m. in the night, She was alone and had not even brought her child with her. Being surprised, her ‘mother had asked her what had happened. She started crying and informed her mother and uncle that the accused persons were very unhappy, as the television and cooler had not been given and they had turned her out of the matrimonial home, refusing to even give her, her child. The mother and the uncle tried to pacify Ms. Renu and told her that with the passage of time, things would get settled and she should go back to her matrimonial home. After 20-25 days, Mukesh came to his in-laws’ house. During their meeting, the mother and uncle of Ms. Renu told Mukesh to treat her properly and said that the child should not be kept away from Ms. Renu. They also assured him that as soon as they could make some arrangement, they would give the television and cooler to Mukesh, After this assurance, Mukesh took Renu with him to the matrimonial home. While leaving, Renu told her mother that though they were sending her to her matrimonial home, her in-laws would kill her and she may not come back atall. On 17th February, 1996, the uncle of Renu received a call from PW3, Anoop Sharma, resident of Roorkee, informing him that some accident had taken place and Renu was not well. He asked them to come to Roorkee immediately. Mother and uncle of Renu came to Roorkee, where they learnt and believed that for failing to give television and cooler, Renu’s mother-in-law, brother-in-law and husband had sprinkled kerosene and set Renu on fire. Before setting her on fire, accused Mukesh had also beat her and when Renu attempted to defend herself, even Mukesh received some bruises on his person. On 17th February, 1996 itself, the mother of the deceased lodged a complaint with the Police Station Gangnahar, Leen as [Type text] Page 4 Scanned with CamScannerIndian Penal Code Case Briefs = Roorkee and case No. 32 of 1996 under Section 3088 Indian Penal Code was registered 0” that very day. All accused are guilty of dowry death under Section 3048 Indian Penal Code. 5. Rajinder Singh v, State of Punjab, 2015: ‘Coming back to the facts of the present appeal, a young woman, namely, Salwinder Kaur to the Appellant Rajinder Singh sometime in the year 1990. On 31% August, . four years of the marriage, Salwinder Kaur consumed Aluminium Phosphide, Which is a pesticide, as a result of which her young life was snuffed out. On the same day, an FIR was lodged against the husband, his older brother and the older brother's wife. The trial court after examining the evidence of the prosecution and the defence, acquitted the ‘Appellant's older brother and his wife but convicted the Appellant Under Section 304B and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, which is the minimum sentence that can be pronounced on a finding of guilt under the said Section. This was done after examining in particular the evidence of PW. 2-Karnail Singh, the father of the deceased ‘woman, PW-3-Gulzar Singh, his elder brother and PW-4-Balwinder Singh, Sarpanch of the village. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirmed the conviction and the sentence vide the impugned judgment. For the purpose of this appeal itis sufficient to set out the dead woman's father's evidence which has been accepted by the two courts below. have three daughters and two sons, Paramjit Kaur, Manjit Kaur and Salwinder Kaur are my daughters. Salwinder Kaur my daughter was married to Rajinder Singh r/o Bathwala. She ‘was married to Rajinder Singh four years prior to her death. After one year of the marriage, my daughter came to me and told that her husband Rajinder Singh, the brother-in-law Davinder Singh and Gurmit Kaur, present in court, are demanding money for constructing a house. She also informed me that they were quarrelling with her for the said demand of money. At the time of marriage of my daughter, I had given sufficient dowry according to my status. I told my daughter that at that moment I am not in possession of money. However, I gave she-buffalo to my daughter for taking the same to her in-laws’ house and asked her to pull on with the parents-in-law. After 7/8 months, when my daughter was again ill-treated by the accused, she came to me and again demanded money. The accused, present in court, were demanding and compelling my daughter to back with a promise that I would visit her shortly and on the following day, I alongwith my brother Gulzar Singh, the then Sarpanch Balwinder Singh and Ex-Serpanch Hazura Singh went to the house of the accused in village Bathwala, ‘On arrival at the house of the accused, the accused, present in court, along with father-in-law of my daughter were present at their house, Harjinder Singh, my son-in-law along with Gurmit Kaur and Davinder Singh were also present. I requested all of them not to quarrel with my daughter on account of demand of money. I also assured the accused that I would pay them the said amount atthe time of harvesting the crop. The accused insisted about the Femand of money. My daughter Salwinder Kaur visited my house 15 days prior to her death. {again pacified my daughter that I would definitely pay the amount after harvesting the crop. Page 5 [Type text] a Scanned with CamScannernae Indian Penal Code Case Briefs —<—— Salwinder Kaur was not happy for not getting the money from me. She was maltreated by the accused. After the death of Salwinder Kaur, member panchayat Harbhajan Singh of V- Bathwala and Davinder Singh accused eame to my house and informed that my daughter has died after consuming some poisonous substance and I was asked to accompany them for cremating the dead body. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: 1. Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, 2010: This appeal has been filed by Preeti Gupta the married sister-in-law and a permanent resident of Navasari, Surat, Gujarat with her husband and Gaurav Poddar, a permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharashtra, who is the unmarried brother-in-law of the complainant, Manisha Poddar, against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Jharkhand dated 27.4.2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 304 of 2009. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under: ‘The Complainant Manisha was married to Kamal Poddar at Kanpur on 10.12.2006. Immediately afier the marriage, the complainant who is respondent No. 2 in this appeal left for Mumbai along with her husband Kamal Poddar who was working with the Tata Consultancy Services (for short "TCS") and was permanently residing at Mumbai. The complainant also joined the TCS at Mumbai on 23.12.2006. Respondent No. 2 visited Ranchi to participate in "Gangaur" festival (an important Hindu festival widely celebrated in Northern India) on 16.3.2007. After staying there for a week, she returned to Mumbai on 24.03.2007. Respondent No. 2, Manisha Poddar filed a complaint on 08.07.2007 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi under Sections 498A, 406, 341, 323 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all immediate relations of her husband, namely, Pyarelal Poddar (father-in-law), Kamal Poddar (husband), Sushila Devi (mother-in-law), Gaurav Poddar (unmarried brother-in-law) and Preeti Gupta @ Pree ‘Agrawal (married sister-in-law). The complaint was transferred to the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Statements of Respondent No. 2 and other witnesses were recorded and on 10.10.2008 the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and passed the summoning order of the appellants. The appellants are aggrieved by the said summoning order. In the criminal complaint, it was alleged that a luxury car was demanded by all the accused named in the complaint. It was also alleged that respondent No. 2 was physically assaulted at Mumbai. According to the said allegations of the complainant, it appears that the alleged incidents had taken place either at Kanpur or Mumbai. According to the averments of the ‘complaint, except for the demand of the luxury car no incident of harassment took place at Ranchi. Held, Appellant No.1 is permanent resident of Gujarat and Appellant No.2 is resident of Maharashtra and never visited Ranchi were the alleged incident took place - Appellant had never lived with the Respondent and her husband - Compliant was filed to harass and [Type text] Page 6 Scanned with CamScanneré Indian Penal Code Case Briefs —_ reful and cautious humitiate the relatives of husband - Courts have to be extremely ca - dealing with complains relating to matrimonial cases and must take pragmatic realities ito consideration while dealing with the same - Allegations of harassment ‘of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion and required to be serutinised with great care and circumspection - Complaint against the Appellants quashed SUICIDE: 1. Ram Sunder Dubey y, State, 1961 All: ‘The prosecution allegations were that the accused-applicant attempted to commit suicide by resorting to hunger strike. He was employed in the Mental Hospital, Bareilly, but was suspended from service, He alleged that the authorities in charge of the institution were guilty -1960, in order to coerce them into reinstating him, he lay down on a bed near the Gandhi statue in the heart of the city of Bareilly, flanked by placards proclaiming his grievances, and proceeded to fast on 1-3-1960 the Station Officer of the Bareilly Kotwal found that the accused condition was deteriorating and hence had him transferred to the District Hospital and from there to the District Jail. ‘The accused admitted that he had gone on hunger strike but denied that he had intended fasting to death, He produced evidence to show that he was taking lemon juice morning and evening during the continuance of his fast. The courts below, however, have not believed this defence evidence and have come to the conclusion that the accused actually meant to fast to death unless his demands were conceded. of unfair discrimination and on 27. ‘The question is whether any offence under Section 309, I.P. C. has been made out. The peculiar difficulty about suicide by starvation is that it isa long drawn out process, which can be interrupted or given up at any stage (except perhaps the very last). Unless there is some overt declaration by the accused of his intention to fast to death, it is difficult to be sure that he really intended to persevere to the bitter end. And even ifthere is such an intention at the beginning, one has always to make allowance for the possibility of the accused changing his rind and breaking his fast before it becomes dangerous. 1 am prepared to concede that ifa person openly declares that he will fst to death and then proceeds to refuse all nourishment tintil the stage is reached when there is imminent danger of death ensuing, he could be held tuilty ofthe offence of attempted suicide. But inthe present case the evidence falls short of this and can scarcely be said to be sufficient to substantiate the charge. 2. Tejsingh v. State, 1957 Raj: Criminal - Conviction - Enhancement of Sentence - Trial Court convicted Accused for offence punishable under Sections 147, 306 and 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (LP.C.) and sentenced them six months’ rigorous imprisonment - Hence, this Appeal - Whether, prosecution proved guilt of Accused beyond reasonable doubt - Held, evidence of three eye ‘vitnesses made it clear that nothing could be brought out in their cross-examination to suggest that they had any reason to implicate any of Accused falsely - Further, evidence —_—_——————_— —aox« Page 7 [Type text] Scanned with CamScannerIndian Penal Code Case Briefs —— witnesses had given as consistent with first report and was also consistent with statements of each other with only one or two minor discrepancies - Moreover, conduct of Accused was of ‘encouragement of committal of sati by deceased which was proved beyond doubt - Therefore, case in question squarely fell under eategory of Section 107 1.P.C. ~ Thus, evidence of eve witnesses proved beyond all doubt guilt of Accused Futher, custom which was prevalent UPto 1833 was forbidden more than 100 years ago by law - Therefore, sentence of six months’ rigorous imprisonment for such a barbarous act of abetment of Sati was ludicrous - Hence, Court enhanced sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment was awarded to Accused = Hence, Appeal No. 196 of 1956 fied by Accused was dismissed and Appeals No. 196 of 1956 filed by State was allowed. Ratio Decidendi: "Courts shall not be unnecessarily lenient while awarding punishments, heinous crimes." HURT AND GRIEVOUS HUR’ 1. Jagdish Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1992 HP: for commission of “The prosecution case was that on 8-12-1987, Kuldip Chand Conductor was deployed on HLR.T.C. Bus No. HPK 1073 bound from Dharamshala to Beer-Guner. Sh. Amar Singh (P.W. 1) was driver on this bus. The accused boarded this bus at Baler. The bus was stopped at Tang for a few minutes where some passengers got down and some others boarded the bus. ‘Thereafter the bus had hardly covered a distance of 200 yards or one furlong when bell was sounded to stop it. When it stopped, the accused got down from the rear door of the bus and ‘came in from the front door and caught hold of the conductor Kuldip Chand from his arm and lasked why the bus was not stopped immediately when he sounded the bell. Some altercations ‘were exchanged between the accused and Kuldip Chand. Sh. Kuldip Chand told the accused that the bus had stopped only @ furlong back and why he had sounded the bell again. At this the accused hit Kuldip Chand with a knife in his abdomen. By the time the Driver, Sh. Amar hand, the accused fled away. He took Kuldip Chand to Cantonment ind on the advice of the doctors of that hospital took him to Civil Hospital at Dharamshala. Kuldip Chand was examined by Dr. DN. Chadha, Surgical Specialist who performed operation on him on the next day. Dr. Amarjit singh Dadhwal gave the medico-legal certificate according to which Sh. Kuldip Chand had a penetrating cut ‘wound, on the left hypochondrium 2.cm. in length and 2 em. in depth, penetrating into the abdominal cavity. “The accused was charged for offences under Sections 333 and 307, IPC. But after the trial, 's Judge convicted him under Section 333, IPC only. The Sessions Judge held that 1ce under Section 307, IPC was not proved as the accused had to intention to cause death or knowledge that the tab wound caused by him would result in the death of Kuldip Chand. He has rejected the evidence of identification parade of the ‘icoused as well asthe recovery of weapon of offence, that i knife, but on the basis of evidence on record, he has concluded that it was the accused who caused grievous ‘Singh came near Kuldip C! Hospital in an ambulance ai the Sessi on the evidence on record, offen remaining [type text] Pages Scanned with CamScanner- Indian Penal Code Case Briefs a injury with knife on the person ‘of Kuldip Chand who was a public servant and discharging his duty as such, Held, Accused, was unable to show that victim was not a public servant and was not discharging his duties as such at relevant time when he was inflicted simple injury with knife, that was, sharp edged weapon, by accused - Therefore, accused committed an offence under Section 332 of the IPC by voluntary causing hurt to victim who was a publie servant and discharging his duty as such - He was a young man 22 years of age and was at threshold of his life - He already been convicted and sentenced for a period of 6 months ina case under Section 307, converted into Section 326, IPC by Supreme Court, which offence he had Committed at age of about 17 years and was presently undergoing sentence of imprisonment - He was also handicapped by his left hand - Looking to all these circumstances, he was given such a sentence which should deter him from committing any offence in future as well as reform him as a law abiding citizen - Judgment of Sessions Judge set aside partly that accused was held guilty of an offence under Section 332 instead of Section 333, IPC - Present appeal partly accepted. 2, Tunu v. State of Orissa 1988 Or: ‘The petitioners stood charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Code with having attempted to commit the murder of Jugal Singh (P.W. 14) in furtherance of their ‘common intention at the Janhapada Canal bridge situated in the Attabira Police Station area on June 16, 1981, at about 11.30 P.M. while P.W. 14 had been driving his car with his Munshi Nidha Mahar (P.W. 11) and two other co-villagers, namely, Malia Karan (P.W. 8) who had lodged the first information report and Somanath Bhoi (P.W. 9), seated in the vehicle. The allegations against the petitioners were that while P.W. 14 was on the Janhapada Canal bridge with two walls on either side, the petitioner Dhuma alias Saplister Kumbhar, ‘who was said to be working then as a servant of the petitioner Tunu alias Tirthankar, blocked the way of P.W. 14 by standing on the middle of the road with a bicycle. The petitioner Tunu alias Tirthankar by means of a knife and the petitioner Rajendra Majhi by means of a Bhujali dealt multiple blows on the person of P.W. 14 inside the car whereafter they dragged him out and pressed him against the stoney wall of the canal. P,Ws. 8, 9 and 11 had taken to their heels for their own safety after the petitioner Tunu dealt his first blow, by means of a knife on the person of P.W. 14. This was the case presented by the prosecution. On the basis of the first information report lodged by P.W. 8, who had disowned the contents thereof at the trial and had not supported the case of the prosecution for which he was put leading questions under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, investigation was taken up in course of which the petitioners were arrested and a Bhujali with suspected stains of blood (M.O. III) was seized from the house of the petitioner Rajendra and steps were taken for the treatment of P.W. 14 first at Attabira hospital and then in the Medical College Hospital at Burla where P.W. 14 was confined to his bed for twenty-two days. On the completion of investigation, a charge sheet was placed for prosecution of the petitioners for the commission of an offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Code. ———— [Type text] Page 9 Scanned with CamScannerae Indian Penal Code Case Briefs —<= dangers life or which ily pain, or unable tO fact that a sufferer has his clause. It must be Clause 8 of Section 320 of the Code provides that any hurt which en ‘causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bo follow his ordinary pursuits would be construed as grievous. The mere been in the hospital for twenty days or more is not sufficient (0 attract u proved that during that time, he was in severe bodily pain or was unable to follow his ‘ordinary pursuits, A person with some injuries may be capable of following his ordinary pursuits long before twenty days are over, but may remain as a convalescent in the hospital for the sake of permanent recovery or greater case or comfort Held, Clause 8 of Section 320 of the Code provides that any hurt which endangers life oF which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits would be construed as grievous - The mere fact that @ sufferer has been in the hospital for twenty days or more is not sufficient to attract this clause = It must be proved that during that time, he was in severe bodily pain or was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits- Dispute with regard to an auction in which the Petitioner was one of the bidders had resulted in the attack - Offence of eausing hurt is punishable under Section 324 of the Code with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both -Petitioners sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the periods already undergone by them especially in the absence of evidence that they had previously been convicted of any such offence or that they were persons with rowdy elements - Petition allowed in part 3. Pritam Singh v. State, 1996 Del: Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1988 is filed by Balbir Singh-the complainant against the very same judgment challenging the acquittal of Nachhatar Singh and Sukhpal Singh under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since both these appeals arise out of the common judgment, they are being disposed of by this judgment. “The appellant is brother of Nachhatar Singh (A-2) and Sukhpal Singh is son of the appellant (A-3). They were put up for trial for committing the murder of Naib Singh and causing grievous injuries to the prosecution witnesses. Sukhpal Singh was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code but Nachhatar Singh was acquitted. It is also not in dispute that Naib Singh (since deceased) was the first cousin of appellant. On February 14, 1984, in the morning hours, Balbir Singh (PW 4) alongwith his son Bain Singh ‘was going to the fields. When they reached the point from where the passage bifurcates to the filed of Pritam Singh, Pritam Singh, Nachhatar Singh and Sukhpal Singh (A-1 to A-3) who were armed with gandasas, came there and raised a lalkara that Balbir Singh (PW 4) be not spared. The appellant immediately attacked and gave gamdasa blow on the head of Naib Singh. Naib Singh sustained a bleeding injury and fell down. The other two accused caused injuries to Balbir Singh (PW 4) with the gandasas,, Balvinder Singh (PW 5) on hearing the alarm reached the place of occurrence. The appellant gave gandasa blow on his head also. ‘Nachhatar Singh (A-2) gave two gandasa blows to Balvinder Singh (PW 5) from the blunt ————— text] [Type text] Page 10 eee Scanned with CamScannerIndian Penal Code Case Briefs was having kasauli and in self defence used side. Balvinder Singh (PW 5) atthe relevant time i root sa and Nachhatar Singh (A-2)- This the same causing injuries to Pritam Singh-the appella n(A-2). : incident was witnessed by Thana Singh (Pw 6). Thana Singh (PW 6) took Naib Sree Singh (PW 4) and Balvinder Singh (PW 5) tothe Civil Hospital at Gidderbaha- Dr. a (PW 2) declared Naib Singh dead. Dr. N.V. Garg (PW 2) examined Balbir Singh (P ye Garg (PW 2) also examined Balvinder Singh ws) PW 8) Station House Officer, Police the hospital and recorded the issued the injury certificate, Dr. N.C. and found two injuries on his person. Paras Ram ( Station, Gidderbaha, on receipt of the information went to . statement of injured Balbir Singh (Ex. P12) and treated the same as formal F.LR. The crime ‘came to be registered against three persons under Sections 302, 3: and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Afler completing the necessary investigation, the ‘accused were put up for trial for the aforesaid offences. Criminal ~ murder « Sections 34, 300, 302, 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sppeal against conviction - evidence of eye witness sufficient to convict accused - ples of private defense cannot be sustained as evidence proved murder was done with sufficient intention - conviction under Section 302 upheld - appeal dismissed. 4. Babloo v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1995: “Appellant Babloo alias Sujeet, after having been convieted in S. T. No. 195/91 under Section 307, IP.C., wherein he was awarded R. I. for 5 years together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and under Section 324, LP.C. for cousing injuries to two persons, namely Motilal and Ganesh and sentenced to 4-4 months’ R. I. on the said counts together with a fine of Rs. 100-100/-, approached this Court by means of present appeal for setting aside the conviction and sentence. ‘The appellant is resident of village Madhia, district Sagar and appears to be a religious person as the occurrence in question look place when the appellant , complainant Shuilendra, Motilal and Ganesh were participating in a Keertan. The alleged incident took place on 24th August, 1990 in village Madhia during the night hours while the Keertan at the resident of Rama (P.W. 10) was going on. The report of the oceurrence was lodged by Shailendra (P.W. 11) at about 2.00 a.m. in the night the same day at P.S. Cantt. Sagar. which is Ex.P/9, In the alleged incident Shailendra, Motilal and Ganesh received injuries. ‘According to prosecution, in the night of 24th August, 1990 at the house of Rama (P.W. 10) in village Madhia Keertan was going on, wherein complainant Shailendra (P.W. 11) was present and he was playing. jhoola (musical instrument). Motilal (P.W. 12), Lalloo Patel (P.W. 13) and Ganesh (P.W. 14) were also participating in the said Keertan. while Keertan ‘on the accused-appellant is said to have taken said Jhoola' from the hands of complainant Shailendra, which was objected to by him. whereat the accused-appellant caught hhim and took him out side the house of Rama (P.W. 10) and inflicted knife injuries on his juries by knife by the accused-appellant. However, the matter ‘could be pacified by Lalloo (P.W. .13) and Rama (P.W. 10). Thereafter the report of the ee = Crypetext] Page 11 Scanned with CamScannerIndian Penal Code Case Briefs —_ alleged incident was lod egistered as Crime No, that the case was hande iged by Shailendra (P.W, 11) at P.S. Cant. Sagar and a case was 325/90. After investigation of the erime, charge- sheet was submitted dover to the Sessions Court cieal ~ Hurt - Conviction - Seetions 307, 320, 324, 325 and 326 of Indian Penal Code IPC), 1860; Sections 360 and 361 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 ~ Appeal “gainst order of conviction for offence under Section 307 of IPC - Held, from evidence on Fecord it was shown that Appellant had no intention and no knowledge that his act was such Which may cause death - Everything was in sudden impulse as when the impulse passed away, Appellant ran away - Doctors had not expressed any opinion as regards the nature of injury whether it was grievous hurt or simple hurt - Court cannot usurp the functions ofan expert and as such it was not possible for this Court to assume role of an expert and to Express its own opinion regarding nature of the injury - Hospitalization of victim was not for @ space of 20 days - It was not established that victim suffered severe bodily pain during ‘Space of twenty days - It was not established that victim was unable to follow his ordinary Pursuits - It was not a case of grievous hurt - Ingredients of Section 324 IPC were established by prosecution ~ Appellant found guilty for committing crime under Section 324, IPC while inflicting the injuries on person of PW II - His conviction under Section 324, IPC for causing injuries on person of PW 12 and PW 14 maintained - Appeal partly allowed. Ratio Decidendi: Court cannot usurp the functions of an expert and as such it was not possible for this Court 10 assume role of an expert and to express its own opinion regarding nature of the injury. 5. Narinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, 1995 P&H: Sukhbir Singh (18), Ranjit Singh (35), Kabal Singh (70) and Sewa Singh (45) were tried by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dasuya, on a complaint filed by Narinder Singh under Sections 326/324/34 of the Penal Code. By judgment and order dated August 27, 1985. Kanal ‘Singh and Sewa Singh were substantively convicted under Section 324 of the Penal Code and the co-accused Sukhbir Singh and Ranjit Singh were convicted for the said offence with the aid of Section 34 of the Penal Code, Instead of awarding any sentence, the accused were directed to be released on probation for a period of one year on their furnishing bond and surety to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- each. Each of the accused was further directed to pay Rs. 100/- as costs of the proceeding and out of this amount Rs. 200/- were directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by the judgment, the complainant Narinder Singh has preferred this appeal for setting aside the acquittal under Section 326 of the Penal Code and for awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment against the accused. ‘According to the prosecution, the parties belong to village Alharpind and are neighbours. On 1-8-1983 it was raining heavily. At about 4 p.m. the rain water entered the house of the complainant which is at a lower level compared to the street on which it abuts. The complainant started draining out the water into the street with the help of a Kassi. The accused Sukhbir Singh and Ranjit Singh were returning from their fields. They took objection to the discharge of the water in the street. They called the co-accused Kabal Singh and his ———$ —————_— TIype text] Page 12 Scanned with CamScanner— Indian Penal Code Case Briefs _ Son. Kabal Singh appeared on the scene with a Gandasi and Sewa Singh with a Kirpan. ‘Sukhbir Singh and Ranjit Singh exhorted the co-accused, upon which Sewa Singh gave & Kirpan blow hitting the right thumb of the complainant. Kabal Singh gave a blow with Gandasi which hit the little finger and the ring finger of the right hand of the complainant. ‘Sukhbir Singh and Ranjit Sit igh belaboured the complainant with fists and slaps. The complainant raised alarm which attracted his mother Smt. Raghbir Kaur (PW-3) and Pargat ‘Singh who had come to house of the complainant. They rescued the complainant from further assault, The injured was taken to Primary Health Centre, Tanda. He was examined. Later on the matter was also reported to the police vide FIR Exhibit PW 4/A dated August 5, 1983, but the police failed to take any action and accordingly a complaint was filed before the Magistrate on August 16, 1983. Criminal - Probation - Sections 34 and 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Present appeal filed against order whereby respondents were released on probation - Held, injury involved fracture of bone was, grievous in nature, it was at root of thumb while two other injuries attributed to K were on litte finger and ring finger of complainant - All three injuries were thus on a non vital part of body - -Hence, acquittal of respondents are set aside and they are hereby convicted under Sections 326 and 34 of IPC - Appeal allowed accordingly 6. Sellamuthu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1995 Mad: Criminal - onus - Sections 300, 302 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 173 (2) and 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - appeal against conviction for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 323 - prosecution discharged its onus in proving that accused was responsible for infliction of stab on chest of deceased and caused injuries on person of witness - accused inflicted injury with intention of causing death - injury caused on witness simple in nature - held, conviction and sentence imposed upon accused under Sections 302 and 323 confirmed. Fight over mortgaged lands and redemption of it Another cause being cattle grazi other's land, Accused used kuththeetes, a sharp object. 1g into the 7. Narendra Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan, 1987 SC: Criminal - compoundable - Sections 307, 320 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - whether conviction of appellant under Section 307 of Code sustainable - facts revealed injuries not likely to cause death - held, appellant to be convicted under Section 324 and not under Section 307 of Code. “Though the appellant assaulted the deceased with a sword, the injuries ascribed to him were ‘ona vital part of the body i.e. neck. The testimony of the doctor shows that the injuries were ofa simple nature and were not likely to cause death. That being so, the appellant, could only be convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 8, Shrirang Kisan Kurade v. State of Maharashtra, 1992 Bom: —=§$_ $= Trype text] Page 13 ee Scanned with CamScannerIndian Penal Code Case Briefs ——————— The incident took place at 9.15 p.m. on 2nd February 1988 within the limits of village Kole (on Karad-Dhebewadi road near Ganpati temple. At the relevant time there was a fair at Village Kole and the deceased along with other five companions decided to attend that fair. The deceased and his companions were residents of KVumbhargaon which is a hamlet of Kole. All these persons left the village for Kole at 8.30 pam. on bicycles. On the road the complainant Suresh Kalantre, PW I and his other three companions took a halt at $.T. stand at Talamavale for taking water. However, PW 2 Sandip Baile and Anandrao Kachare Proceeded ahead towards Kole to attend the fair. While PW 2 Sandip was proceeding on bieyele, near Wanarwadi a bullockcart came across their bicycle. At the relevant time the said bicycle was driven by Ananda and PW 2 Sandip was siting on the carrier of the said bicycle. Because of the sudden crossing of the bullockcart Ananda lost balance of his bicycle and consequently suddenly fell down. At the relevant time accused Nos. 1 and 2 were also going by bieyele and as a result ofa fall ofthe bicycle of Ananda they also lost the balance of their bicycle and had a fall. Due to this, accused No. 2 was annoyed and he gave on slap to PW 2 A Sandip. Im the meantime the deceased Dilip was following PW 2 Sandip and Ananda to whom he met ‘at Wanarwadi. At that time both Sandip and Ananda narrated to the deceased the story about the bicycle accident and the incident of slap given by accused No. 2 on the cheek of Sandip. Thereafter all these three companions decided to go to the accused for making certain enquiry as to why accused No. 2 gave a slap on the cheek of Sandip. All the said three companions Proceeded towards Kole in the direction where the accused persons proceeded earlier. While the accused persons were on Karad-Dhebewadi road near Ganpati temple, PW 2 Sandip, the deceased Dilip and Ananda intercepted them. PW 2 Sandip pointed out to Dilip accused No. 2 Subhash who slapped him. Thereafter the deceased and Anand parked their bicycles and ‘went towards the accused person. The deceased made enquiries with the accused persons and ‘questioned them as to why they slapped Sandip on earlier occasion. After hearing the aforesaid question the accused persons got annoyed and thereafter scuffle ensued between Ananda, PW 2 Sandip, the deceased and accused Nos. 1 and 2 Accused No. 1 Shrirang and the deceased Dilip were pushing each other at backward side. When this scuffle was going on, the other three companions who were left behind viz., Mubarak Mulla, Jayawant and Suresh also came near the spot where the scuffle was going on. As per the evidence led by the prosecution, in the said scuffle accused No. 1 whipped out a knife and inflicted a blow of the said knife on the chest ofthe deceased Dilip. The deceased Dilip sustained bleeding injury admeasuring about 3° x 1/2" above the left wrist at Anterior side and the other injury was caused on the let side on the chest. It is pertinent to note that both these piercing injuries were caused by one single blow. Thereafter the deceased collapsed by taking the name of his mother (Aye) and became unconscious. PW 1 Suresh Kalantre thereafter took the knife from the hands of accused No. I and with the help of one tempo passing by that road, the deceased ‘was taken to the hospital where he was declared as dead. Thereafter PW I Suresh left Krishna Hospital and contacted Karad Taluka Police Station and lodged the complaint which is the First Information Report, a 0.35 hours on 3rd February 1988, which is Exh. 18, All the other companions and accused Nos. | and 2 were also present in the Police Station, [Type text] a Page 14 Scanned with CamScanner————_————— = Indian Penal Code Case Briefs a On the basis of the aforesaid facts, offence of murder of the deceased Penal Code before the Sessions Ci ission of both the accused persons were charged for commission 0 Delip under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian ‘ourt at Satara, tras contended on behalf ofthe defence that itis true that accused No. 2 slapped Sandip, PAW 2. However, it was further contended on behalf ofthe defence thatthe deceased Sandip, PW 2 and Ananda in fact interce Aggressive mood. Further, pted the accused persons near Ganpati temple it was contended that there was a scuffle between the said three Person on one hand and accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the other hand. In the said scuffle, according {othe defence, accused No. 1 and the deceased Dilip had caught hold of each other and were ‘eying to grip each other. When the said seufMle was going on, according tothe defence, had taken outthe knife. Thereafter accused No. | caught hold of the hand of Dilip in which he ‘was holding the knife and inthe scuffle accidently the knife caused injury to the hand of the deceased and also penetrated through the chest ofthe deceased, resulting in his death by Rncture injury caused to the heart of the deceased. In short it was contended on behalf of the defence that accused No. I had exercised right of self-defence to protect himself in apprehension of injury which was likely o be caused to him and in doing so, accidently the deceased got injured and succumbed to death. It was, therefore, contended on behalf of the defence, thatthe accused were guilty of no offence for which they were charged. Criminal - intention - Seetions 304 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - appeal against ‘conviction of appellant under Part 2 of Section 304 ~ contended that accused had exercised right of self defence to protect himself in apprehension of which was likely to be caused to him - accidentally deveased got injured and succumbed to death - from circumstances of ease itclearly shows that accused wanted to cause some minor injury to deceased said that accused intended to cause death or guilty of offence under Section 324, - it cannot be rievous hurt to deceased - held, accused was 9. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jamshed, 1994 $C: Criminal - validity of acquittal - Sections 34, 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ~ acquittal of accused from Sections 302/34 of Code of 1860 and Section 5 (1) (a) of Arms Act challenged under appeal - no infirmit 'y found in evidences laid by prosecution witness - found that High Court strongly rejected Prosecution case on ground of delay in filing First Information Report - proved that accuse: d shot at deceased with country made pistol resulted ‘in death- though common intention could not be established - held, cquital not sustainable, Co accused guilty of hurt on the neck of deceased with a balkati 10, Ram Singh v. State of Haryana, 1998 SC: CFiminal - Murder - Sections 148, 324, 325 and 302/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Dispute related to ownership of tree led to exchan, 'ge of hot words and abuses between two parties - Appellants assaulted other party deceased with weapons resulting in death oftwo persons and injury € two others - Session Court convicted appellants for offence unde. Sections 148, 324, 325 and 302/149 - Convietion confirmed by High Court - Hence resent ‘Typetent] ee Page 15 Scanned with CamScanner. Indian Penal Code Case Briefs — per Appellants contended that they acted in self defence - Evidence of witnesses not eroborated by medical evidence - Held, conviction of appellant cannot be sustained in view Of infirmities in evidences of witnesses - Appeal allowed 11. AC Gangadhar v State of Karnataka, 1998 SC: ‘What has been proved against the appellant is that he caused an injury with an axe on the head of P.W, 5. The evidence of P.W. 5 has been believed by both the Courts and it also stands corroborated by the medical evidence. We find no good reason not to accept the finding recorded by the Courts below and confirm the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC. The nature of the injury indicates that blow must have been given by A. 1 With great force on the forehead of P.W. 5 as it had caused a fracture. Therefore, the ‘conviction of the appellant under Section 326 is quite proper. Considering the nature of injury ‘caused to P.W. 5 we do not think that the sentence imposed upon the appellant can be said to be excessive. Criminal - conviction - Sections 100 and 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - conviction on allegation of hurt challenged - conviction based upon oral evidence of victim corroborated with medical evidence reasonable - injuries attributed to victim seemed grievous - plea of private defence taken by belligerent accused not sustainable - conviction of accused justified. 12, State of Bihar v. Ramnath Prasad, 1998 St Criminal - murder - Sections 304 and 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - appeal against Order of High Court by which Order of conviction under Sections 304 Part II and 326 set aside - High Court not justified in discarding evidence of eyewitnesses - accused given by way of ‘prasad’ poisonous substance to deceased - prosecution proved guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt - Order passed by High Court liable to be set aside - appeal allowed. ACID ATTACK: 1. Kulamani Sahoo v. State of Orissa, 1994 Or: ‘The prosecution case is that on 23-11-1983 at about 9 p.m, immersion procession of God and Goddess Hara and Parbati was passing through the village road of Talmul Patna. When the procession reached near a Dolamandapa of the village, suddenly the electric power supply vas disconnected. Accused Kulamani and Sanatan put an iron rod on the electric line, and ww the power supply failed. Taking advantage ofthe darkness, all the accused persons threw acid on the persons who were participants in the procession. Accused Kulamani dealt a Bhujali blow on the right hand of the informant Hadibandhu Sahu (P.W. 1) causing bleeding injury, and accused Sanatan dealt a tangi blow on Sanjaya Kumar Sahu (PW. 2) causing bleeding injuries on his right shoulder and chest. On account of throwing of acid Nidhi Sahu, Narendra Sahu and Srikar Sahu (P.Ws. 4 to & respectively) were disfigured having lost their eyes and other persons were also seriously injured. Immediately the injured persons were removed to Angul Hospital, and P.W. 1 lodged fist information report atthe police station on the sme night, The Officer-in-charge resistered a case, examined the that is ho Tiype text] Page 16 Scanned with CamScanner= Indian Penal Code Case Briefs = jon. informant and the injured persons, and gave requisition for their medical examin: Investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof, charge-sheet was submitted. Criminal = Conviction «Sections 147, 326, 324 and 307 f Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sessions Judge acquitted Accused-Petitioners of charges under Sections 147, 326, 324 of IPC, but convicted them under Section 307 of IPC - Hence, this Application - Whether, conviction of jured persons had not Petitioners were justified - Held, doctor who had examined various i given any finding that act would have caused death, but for an interruption material in that regard was absent - However, case was squarely covered under Section 326 of IPC - Section referred to causing of grievous hurt by means of corrosive substance - Hence, conviction under Section 307 of IPC could not be maintained - Therefore, considering fact that occurrence took place more than ten years back then it would not be desirable to send accused persons back to custody because it had already undergo - Application disposed of. Ratio Decidendi "Conviction of accused shall be determinate on proper finding of fact —————SvwvwO ew Page 17 Type text Scanned with CamScanner= Indian Penal Code Case Briefs —< ner: xe 1. M'Naghten’s case [1843] UKHL J16 [84. Act ofa person of unsound mind]: Every person is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree ofteason 19 be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary is established. Fe aitch the defence of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at thetime of committe the imme the person was s0 insane as not to know the nature and quality of the act he Was doing, or if he did know it, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. “The test of sronafulness of the act isin the power to distinguish between right and wrong, not in the abstract or in general, but in regard to the particular act committed. 2. Ashiruddin Ahmed vs . The King (CALHC )[84. Aet of a person of unsound mind]: Code, for the murder of his five-year old son and ion is whether the accused ‘Accused convicted under Section 302, Penal that arises for consideratic ‘sentenced to transportation for life. Questi vas entitled to the protection of the provisions of Section 84, Penal Code. (Sacrificed his son as Pes ant in the mosque) Of the three elements necessary to be established under Section 84, any soroan ich must be established by an accused to obtain the benefit ofthe provisions, appears thet first the nature of the act, was clearly known to the accused; secondly, that be knew that the fet was contrary to law, of we have said this was probably known to him. But third element on which the case really turned is whether the accused knew that the act was wong: We find that race ted committed the act alleged, namely, the act of eausing the death of his soa by cutting ae eee pat by reason of unsoundness of mind he was incapable of knowing tat his act was Wirong, The accused is therefore acquitted of the charge under Section 302, Penal Code 4. Basdev vs. The State of Pepsu (SC) [Sections 85 and 86 - Intoxication]: The appellant Jamadar boozed quite a lot and he became very drunk and intoxicated at a tnarriage party. He is charged with the murder of a young boy named ‘Maghar Singh, aged about Ts ta 16. The leamed Sessions Judge says "he was excessively drunk” and that "according to the ae ence of one witness Wazir Singh Lambardar he was almost in an unconscious condition", qhis cieumstance and the total absence of any motive or premeditation to kill were taken by the Scesions Judge into account and the appellant was awarded the lesser penaltyof transportation for life. Les Chancellor laid down three rules in the House of Lord's decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard [1920]: (1) That insanity, whether produced by drunkenness or otherwise, is a defense to the crime charged; {2) That evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific api contial to constitute the crime should be taken info consideration with the other facts proved in order to determine whether or not he had this intents 5) That evidence of drunkenness falling short of a proved incapacity in the accused to form the sae necessary to constitute the erime, and merely establishing that his mind was affected by inter Jo that he more readily gave way to some violent passion, does not rebut the presumption {hata man intends the natural consequences of his acts. Court Observed in this case: [Type text] Page 1 Scanned with CamScanner— Indian Penal Code Case Briefs = ‘All that the evidence shows at the most is that at times he staggered and as incoherent in his {alk, but the same evidence shows that he was also capable of moving himself independently and talking coherently as well. At the same time it is proved that he came to the darwaza of Natha Singh P. W. 12 by himself, that he made a choice for his own seat and that is why he asked the deceased to move away from his place, that after shooting at the deceased he did attempt to get away and was secured at some short distance from the darwaza, and that when secured he realised what he had done and thus requested the witnesses to be forgiven saying that it had happened from him. There is no evidence that when taken to the police station Bamala, he did not talk or go there just as the witnesses and had to be specially supported. All these facts, in my opinion, go to prove that there was not proved incapacity in the accused to form the intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused had, therefore, failed to Prove such incapacity as would have been available to him as a defence, and so the law presumes that he intended the natural and probable consequences of his act, in other words, that he intended to inflict bodily injury to the deceased and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death’. On this finding the offence is not reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to ‘murder under the second part of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 4, Kakoo vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh (SC) [Sections 82 and 83 - Infancy]: Kakoo, aged 13 years, was convicted for committing rape on a child of two years and was sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment. His conviction has been maintained by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Kakoo appeals to this Court by special leave granted under Article 136 of the Constitution, limited to the point of sentence. Reference has been made to Sections 82 and 83 of the Penal Code to bring out the point that in the matter of crime and punishment, a child offender is not to be treated in the same manner as a mature adult. An inordinately long prison term is sure to tum him into an obdurate criminal. In the case of child offenders, current penological trends command a more humanitarian approach. Under the Penal Code, an infant under seven is conclusively presumed to be incapable of committing crime. At this age he is not endowed with any discretion to distinguish right from wrong (Section 82). Even a child between seven and twelve who may not have attained sufficient maturity of understanding to entertain a criminal intent (doliincapax), is presumed to be incapable of committing an offence (Section 83). The appellant shall be detained separately from adult prisoners. He should preferably be detained in a Reformatory School, if any, for the said period. 45, ImtiazAhamed alias Imtiaz Pasha V State [Sections 85 and 86 - Intoxication]: ‘Appellant held punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, for the guilty of murdering his father-in-law and attempt on life of mother-in-law. Accused when entered house of deceased was no doubt drunk but there is no evidence that he was suffering from extreme intoxication nor such defence is put forth before this Court. No evidence available on record to presume that he has no requisite intention to cause death of his father-in-law and attempt on life of his wife and mother- in-law. We find absolutely no evidence in support of this defence that the act was done under intoxication, as the intoxication was self-inflicted, but not against his will nor was it administered —_————— Type text] Page2 Scanned with CamScannerIndian Penal Code Case Briefs —— without his knowledge, Therefore, we do not find any merit in this contention canvassed fo Ov consideration, I doesnot help the Secused to avail the benefit of Section 85 of the Indian Penal ‘ode. ‘The other general exception which has to be considered in the context of this case is the provisions of Section 86 ofthe Indian Penal Code. This section refers to an offence requiring & particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated. The Provision of Section 86 provides that a person voluntarily intoxicated will be deemed to have the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated. Intention, motive, mens rea, knowledge, innocence, mistake of fact, mistake of law, are some of the elements that play significant role in criminal law. Criminal intention’ simply means PArDO® of design or doing of an act forbidden by the criminal law without just cause oF excuse, The act is intentional if it exists in idea before it exists in fact. The word ‘intention’ does not mean ultimate aim and object. Nor is it used as a synonym for motive. ‘The requisite intention ean be gathered from the proved facts. Hence, in our opinion, the act of stabbing was done with a requisite intention to commit murder and therefore, accused is not seid for the benefit of general exception provided under Section 86 ofthe Indian Penal Code, he guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt and we find abundant material in proof of the guilt of the accused. 6. Ponnan v. State rep. by The Inspector of Police ( MADHC ) [84. Act of a person of unsound mind]: saaso eed killed deceased and also attacked P.W.2 to P.W 6 against whom he had no enmity oF any motive Trial Court convicted Appellant for offence of murder, voluntarily eausing hurt and frievous hurt by dangerous weapons. Accused was suffering from some mental disorder - He ae not able to understand effect of incident in which he was Involved. Thus, Accused was entitled for protection under Section 84 of IPC. Hence, this Appeal, Whether, Accused was entitled for protection under Section 84 of IPC. sree of burden of proof in the context of theplea of insanity are (a) thatthe prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt thatthe offence was eommitted by the accsed that the requisite ave, rex and the burden continues from the beginning till the end of the tral (b) that i isa crretnable presumption that the prisoner was not insane when fe commited an offence in Thesense set forth in Section 84 Indian Penal Code, (C) that the accused may rebut the presumption of sanity atthe relevant ime bringing the ease within Section 84, TPC. by producing. vretjacumentary, circumstantial and other materials and he may discharge the burden by crak sighing a reasonable probable cast. The accused is not called upon to establish the element et Section 84, IPC by producing evidence beyond reasonable doubt and (4) that even the accused file to establish affirmatively or conclusively that he was of unsound mind and committed the tar inder the circumstances set out in Section 84, IPC, but raises a reasonable doubt in the mind att he Court as repardspresence of essential ingredients ofthe offence, which of course includes, seine cathe requisite eriminal intentional the Court would be entitled to acquit the accused the sFeand thatthe general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged. Therefore, roiying the above principle, we can safely conclude thatthe accused is entitled for protection aoa section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and the conviction and sentence of the accused is tap to be set aside. At this stage, we are not aware whether the accused who is confined in jal has been cured of the mental disorder. [Type text] Page 3 Scanned with CamScanner— in Penal Code Case Briefs — ‘The materials placed before us establish that the accused has no criminal intentionat the relevant {ime and as such the case squarely falls under Section 84 IPC. By preponderance of probability also it has been established that the accused was mentally unsound and at the time of commission Of the acts he was incapable of knowing the nature of acts and/or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law and accordingly we set aside the conviction and findings passed Against the appellant. We are acquitting the accused on the ground that atthe time at which he as alleged to have committed the offence, he was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the acts alleged as constituting the offences and/or that they were wrong oF contrary to law, but we record the finding that it was the accused who committed the act. 7. Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs .State of Gujarat (SC) (84. Act of a person of unsound mind]: “When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, itis said that the burden of proof lies ‘on that person. It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed {o be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death with the requisite intention described in S. 299 of the Indian Penal Code, This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. But, S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. This being an exception, under Section 105 of the Evidence Act the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the said exception lies on the accused, and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Under S. 105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of "shall presume" in S. 4 thereof, the court shall regard the absence of such circumstances as proved unless, after considering the matters before it, it believes that the circumstance existed or their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case to act upon the supposition that they did exist. To put it in other words, the accused will have to rebut the presumption that such circumstances did not exist, by placing material before the court sufficient to make it consider the existence of the said circumstances so probable that a prudent man would act upon them. The accused has to satisfy the standard of a "prudent man”. If the material placed before the court, such as, oral and documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or even the prosecution evidence, satisfies the test of "prudent man”, the accused will have discharged his burden. The evidence so placed may not be sufficient to discharge he burden under S.105 of the Evidence Act, but it may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge as regards one or other of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself. It may, for instance, raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge whether the accused had the requisite intention laid down in S, 299 of the Indian Penal Code. If the judge has such reasonable doubt, he has to acquit the accused for in that event the prosecution will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. There is no conflict between the general burden, which is always on the prosecution and which never shifts, and the special burden that rests on the accused to make out his defence of insanity." 8, Shrikant Anandrao Bosale v. State of Maharashtra [Supreme Court] [84, Act of a person of unsound mind]: a [Type text] Paget Scanned with CamScannerim Indian Penal Code Case Briefs —= 1g tone “In the instant ease the accused, Police Countable alleged to have hit his wife with grinding on 24thApril 1994. The accused took the plea of insanity. However the prosecution relied on anger theory. The circumstances that stands proved: (a) the appellant has a family history his father was suffering from psychiatric illness. (b) Cause of ailment not known hereditary plays @ Part. (c.) Accused was being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992. Diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, Within a short span, soon after the incident from 27th June to Sth December, 1994, he had to be taken for treatment of ailment 25 times to hospital. (d) Accused vas under regular treatment for the mental ailment. (e) The motive of killing of wife was weak being that she was opposing the idea of the resigning the job of a Police Constable. (f) Killing a wife in a day light made no attempt to hide or run away. Though the facts that the accused did ‘not make any attempt to run away or that he committed crime in day light and did not ry to hide it or that motive to kill his wife was very weak would not itself indicate insanity, however, it would not only the aforesaid facts but it would be the totality of the circumstances seen in the light of the evidence on record, rove that the accused was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The unsoundness of mind before and after incident would be a relevant fact. From the circumstances of the case clearly an inference can be reasonable drawn that the accused was under a delusion at the relevant time, He was under an attack of the ailment. The anger theory on which reliance has been placed by prosecution cannot be ruled out under schizophrenia attack. Having regard to the nature of burden on the accused, the accused can be said to have proved the existence of circumstances as required by S. 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get benefit of S. 84, IPC . In the circumstance, it cannot be said that the crime was committed as a result of extreme fit of anger. A reasonable doubt can be raised that at the time of commission of the crime, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind and, thus, he would be entitled to the benefit if S. 84 IPC. Hence the conviction and sentence of the accused would be liable to be set aside.” 9. Syed Yousuf vs. State of Maharashtra (2004 - BOMHC) [Act of a person of unsound mind]: (@) The accused asked his wife initially to go to village Kanphodi to bring theelder daughter Parvin and the wife accordingly had brought the saiddaughter back to village Rohina. (b) The accused sent his wife back to village Kanphodi to leave the eldest daughter at Kanphodi only with his parents rather than allowing her to live at village Rohina and, therefore, the wife again went back to village Kanphodi. On her second trip, she returned to village Rohina at 10 m. {6) The wife was thus out ofthe house for about 10 o 12 hours onthe date of incident and in the meanwhile, the accused was alone with his two deceased daughters. (d) In the second trip, when his wife retumed from village Kanphodi, the accused went and met her at the S. T. Stand and informed her that he had already sent the deceased daughters to village Kanphodi by a private jeep. (©) When the accused came back to his house with the wife in the night, heasked her not to cook as the three daughters were away. He woke up in themidnight and realizing his disturbances, the wife asked him the reasons for the same. He disclosed for the first time, that he had done away with the two daughters who were in his company and that too by strangulating them with the mosquito net. He also disclosed that the dead bodies of the deceased daughters were kept in each trunk in the house, ee [Type text} Page 5 Scanned with CamScanner— Indian Penal Code Case Briefs (O) When the wife raised alarm learning the shocking disclosure, the accusedfled away and he ‘was missing tll he was taken in custody on the next day at about 11 a.m. from the vicinity of river let near the village, (@) The deceased Shahnaz was around 6 years old and her dead body could not be accommodated in the trunk in the normal circumstances. The accused had virtually folded her dead body at the knees and the waist. (h) The hut of the accused was surrounded by residential houses and no neighbors had ever suspected that any cries or shouts were heard from the house of the accused. This indicated that he had strangulated them either while they were asleep after their dinner or he had killed the elder one first, so that there could be no noise alerting the neighbors. The medical evidence by ‘Way of post mortem report indicated that some digested food was seen in the viscera (i) The wife before the trial Court specifically stated that the accused was unhappy on the count that she was giving birth to daughters only and he didnot have a son. j) The wife had stated that he was not of unsound mind on 25-5-2000 and DW 1 had opined is possible that a person killing his own daughters in normal state of mind may get into depression due to his own acts.” The trial Court has rightly considered all these circumstances and held that the plea of insanity or mental unsoundness, as set out under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code, was not available to the accused and he could not be given the benefit of such an explanation. The trial Court noted that there was no evidence to hold that he had committed the crime under mentally unsound conditions and, on the other hand, he had well planned in the execution of the crime. The depositions of other witnesses have not been considered by us for the simple reasons that the accused had pleaded the protection of Section 84 of Indian Penal Code and it was not disputed that his daughters met homicidal death and their dead bodies were found in two different trunks kept in the hut/house. The view taken by the trial Court is supported by Well-reasoned analysis of the evidence including the medical evidence and, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence, as recorded and impugned in this appeal requires to be confirmed. 10.Bharat Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (2004 RAJHC) [84. Act of a person of unsound mind]: ‘Appellant committed murder of Dinesh by inflicting blows with knife and caused injury on the neck of Raju. Thereafter the appellant caused injuries to himself with scissors and knife. Charge under Sections 302, 307 and 309 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial, The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 14 witnesses. In the explanation Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed innocence. Main contention, advanced on behalf of the appellant is that by reason of unsoundness of mind, the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, therefore, in view of Section 84 IPC, he did not commit any offence. It is well settled that the burden of establishing the plea of insanity is by virtue of Section 105 of the Evidence Act on the accused. Supreme Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujrat (1), indicated that evidence that falls short of proving insanity may still raise a reasonable doubt about the requisite intention. It was observed as under:~ “The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of insanity may be stated thus- (i) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial; oo —————— [Type text} Page 6 Scanned with CamScannerIndian Penal Code Case Briefs ——s Ci) There isa rebuttable presumption thatthe accused was not insane, when he commited fd crime in the sense laid down by Section 84 IPC. The accused may rebut it by placing before 0 Court all the relevant evidence oral, documentary or circumstantial but burden of proof upon hit is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings; ‘ i) Even ithe accused was notable fo establish conclusively that e was insane atthe time Be committed the offence, the evidence placed before the court by the accused or by the Oe TOE ay raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as regards one or more of the ingredient o the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged," In dealing insanity following principles have to be borne in mind:- : (a) Unsoundness of mind as contemplated by Section 84 IPC is legal insanity which requires that cognitive faculties of the accused are such that he does not know what he has done or what will follow from his act. (b) The court shall presume absence of insanity. (©) To get the benefit of Section 84 IPC the accused must establish any one of the three elements necessary under the section, incapability of knowing (1) the nature of the act, or (2) that the act was contrary to law or (3) that it was wrong. . In the case on hand, the appellant is not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence. Although in his statement under Section 313 Cr-P.C., the appellant stated that he was mad but this explanation falls short of proving insanity at the time of commission of offence. Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by learned trial Judge are maintained, 11. T.N. Lakshmaiah vs. State of Karnataka (SC) (84. Act of a person of unsound mind]: Claiming insanity at the time of commission of offence of murdering his own wife Gayathramma and teen aged son Bhaskar, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment of the trial court as well as the High Court by which he has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. Without leading evidence in support of his claim, the appellant urged that there was sufficient material on record which probabilised the existence of circumstances justifying the benefit of the exception as incorporated under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that the prosecution had ailed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. ‘Supreme Court in DahyabhaiChhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujrat (1), indicated that evidence that falls short of proving insanity may still raise a reasonable doubt about the requisite intention, twas observed as under: “The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of insanity may be stated thus- (i) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial, ii) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime in the sense laid down by Section 84 IPC. The accused may rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant evidence oral, documentary or circumstantial but burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings; (ii) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the court by the accused or by the prosecution Tran reel Page 7 Scanned with CamScannerIndian Penal Code Case Briefs ofthe ingredient of entitled (0 was ne or more the court would be enti resting on the prosecution 1e mind of the court as regards © the accused and in that case fhe general burden of proof may raise a reasonable doubt in th the offence, including mens rea of acquit the accused on the ground that t not discharged.” In dealing insanity following princip| (a) Unsoundness of mind as contemp! cognitive faculties of the accused are sucl follow from his act. (b) The court shall presume absence of insanity. (c) To get the benefit of Section 84 IPC the accused must establish any one of the three elements necessary under the section, incapability of knowing (1) the nature of the act, oF (2) that the act ‘was contrary to law or (3) that it was wrong. Court satisfied that the appellant was sane and understood the implications of the act done by him and in no case was having unsound mind within the meaning ‘of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, at the relevant time. Jes have to be borne in mind:- — ated by Section 84 IPC is legal insanity whi fh that he does not know what he has dor ich requires that ne or What will 12, State of West Bengal vs. Shiv Mangal Singh (1981 CrLJ 1683) [Sec. 76. Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law}: petnis case Sections 76 Illustration (a) and 302 read with 34 ~ Police Officer's order to open fire were justified and warranted by the particular situation, It was held that the subordinate officers Wer Jited offence under Section 302 read with 34 by acting in conformity with the order thereby causing death of the deceased. The trial court convicted the respondents., who were all police officers under section 302 read with section 34, IPC and sentenced them to life Imprisonment on charge of causing death of two persone (On analysis of the prosecution aeesorithe High Court concluded that the respondents, while on patrol duty. we"e compelled to pen fire after respondent number I received injuries as & result of the mob violence. Since the enters given by the Deputy Commissioner to open fire were justfiet respondents we're bound ceabey the lawful orders oftheir superior officer. On this ground alove according to the High oon ine accused were entitled to be acquited.A very interesting and important question was eat in the high court as to whether the command ofthe superior officer fo opet fire affords a amplete defense to a subordinate officer if, while acting in the execution of that command he coe tejury or death, The High court in answer to this said that it was unnecessary fo Bh into the question for the simple reason that “we are the High Court was justified in coming to the the avcfon that the particular situation warranted and justified the order issued by the Deputy caaciasscioner of Police to open fire.” If that order was justified and is therefore lawful, no her the respondents, who acted in obedience to that order, further question can arise as to whet raiievcrr didnot believe that order to be lawful. Such an enquiry becomes necessary ‘only when terevder of the superior officer, which as a defense, is found not to be in conforrtiy with the aoe rgnds of law Section 76 ofthe Indian Penal code provides that nothing is an offence which connate a person who is, o who by reason ofa mistake of fact and not by reason of @ mistake ison in good faith believes him to be, bound by lav, to do it. The illustration to that section Siye that if a solder fires on a mob by order of his superior officer, in conformity with the it no offence. The occasion to apply the provisions of the section Commands of the law, he commit soma arise inthe instant case since the question as to whether the accused believed in good dots er gcount of mistake of fact that he was bound by law to do the aet which is alleged to fait tute an offence, would arise only if, 10 the extent relevant in this ease, the order of or Page 8 [Type text] Scanned with CamScannerIndian Penal Code Case Briefs rT Command of the superior officer is not justified to is other-wise unlawful. Since the situation Prevailing at the scene of the offence was to open fire, the respondents can seck the protection of bat order and plead in defence that they acted in obedienceto that order and therefore they cannot be held guilty of the offence to which they are charged. That is the purport of the Illustration to Section 76.Towards the end of the written submissions, the learned counsel on behalf of the State of West Bengal extracted a part ofthe judgment from S.S, Bobdae v. State of Maharashtra[30] to the effeet that a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal ofthe guilty no less than from the convietion of the innocent and that if unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead 10 a cynical disregard of the law. With respect, we share this opinion but do not appreciate its relevance here. Courts must take equal care to ensure that the innocent are not convicted and the guilty are not acquitted but, what the High Court has done is to acquit the innocent. Relying upon the observation is .S Bobdae, the learned counsel stated further that the judicial instrument has 4 public accountability and that the history will never forgive “us” if police officer, undoubtedly Builty of murder, are acquitted “lightheartedly”. We cannot agree more. But the snag lies in the self-righteousness that respondents are “undoubtedly guilty of murder or that they have been acquitted by the High Court “lightheartedly”. Respondent are undoubtedly not guilty of murder and the High Court's judgment reflects its serious concem for justice. Judgments of acquittal are ot to be condemned as “lighthearted” for the reason that the Government considers that it has a stake in the conviction of the accused. 13. State of U.P. vs. Ram Swarup and Anr. (02.05.1974 - SC) [sections 99 and 100- right of private defense} The above case is a classic case on the issue of right of private defense as provided to a person under sections 99 and 100 of Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court in its decisions has claborated as to what constitutes the right of private defense. The facts can be briefly stated as : On 7th June 1970 at about 7 am. one Ganga Ram went to the market to purchase a basket of ‘melons in subzimandiBadauin, Uttar Pradesh, A person called Sahib Datta Mal alias Munimji who was the melons vendor refused to sell it saying that it was already marked for another customer. This led to the exchange of hot words and Munimji asserting his authority said that he ‘was the thekedar of the market and his words were final. Ganga Ram could not take the challenge and left in a huff. “The Supreme Court held that right of private defense is a right of defense, available in face of imminent peril to those who act in good faith and in no conceded to a person who stage-manages a situation wherein the right can Justify an act of aggression. ‘An hour later Ganga Ram along with his three sons Ram Swarup, Somi and Subhash went back to the market. Ganga Ram had a knife, Ram Swarup was carrying a gun and two others earried lathis. They advanced aggressively to the gaddi of Munimiji who, taken by surprise rushed to take shelter in the neighboring kothi. But before he could retreat Ram Swarup shot him dead at point blank range. Ail the four accomplices were tried under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder of Manimji, Ram Swarup was convited forthe murder and was sentenced to Death whereas Ganga Ram was sentenced to life imprisonment by the sessions Court. However, Somi and Sublecn were acquitted. ‘Tiype tex) oe Pageo not retribution. I ‘case can the right be be used as a shield to Scanned with CamScanner= Indian Penal Code Case Briefs = he Hh} on of Allahabad acquitted Ganga Ram and Ram Swarup in an appeal filed by them The darth appeal filed by state against the acquital of Somi and Subbash, scute bonecan Gn By the accused was that when at 8 am they reached the market, there was @ Fathi eaten the deceased Munimji and Ganga Ram, and Ganga Ram was being assaulted by shots pe the Servants of the deceased and secing his father's life in danger Ram Swarup fired ‘ots from the gun he was carrying in right of private defense. ‘The main questions raised in the above case were ‘+ What constitutes the right of private defense? Whether the accused herein have any right of private defense in the given set of circumstances? “Section 100 of the Penal code providing right of private defense of the body, extends to the Voluntary causing of death, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right is of such a Nature as may, to the extent material, reasonably cause the apprehension that the death or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of the assault” The Supreme Court held that right of private defense is a right of defense, not retribution. It is ible in face of imminent peril to those who act in good faith and in no case can the right be conceded to a person who stage-manages a situation wherein the right can be used as a shield to justify an act of aggression. If a person goes with a gun to kill someone , the intended victim is entitled to act in self-defense and if he so acts, there is no right in the former to kill him in order to prevent him from acting in self-defense. The Penal Code does not provide right of private defense as a causing of death, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right is of such a nature as may, to the extent material, reasonably cause the apprehension that the death or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of the assault. ‘The Court held that in the present case the circumstances were not such that Ram Swarup would have been compelled to kill the deceased by firing. The mere possibility of the scuffle, cannot justify the killing of the deceased. Therefore, the plea of Right of private defense taken by Ram ‘Swarup was dismissed. ‘The principles laid down by the Supreme Court are very relevant and the same has become precedent to for a plea of right of private defense. 14, Buta Singh vs. The State of Punjab (SC) [sections 99 and 100- right of private defense]: The deceased and his companions had gone to the disputed land with DW-I to have it tilled. ‘When the appellant's sonfrustrated their effort, they were annoyed and enraged. They, therefore, went to the'dera’ of the appellant and launched an attack.The appellant and his wife fought to repel the attack and in the course of the incident both sides sustained injuries. Theappellant and his wife were clearly defending themselves and hence they had a right ofprivate defence. This version surfaces as a more probable one in the facts andcircumstances of the case. At any rate the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt, The Trial Court accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellant underSection 302, IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. He wasalso convicted under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34, IPC and weresentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and 6 months respectively. ‘The conviction of the appellant is set aside.Consequently, the sentence awarded on all the three courts is also set aside. Theappellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. —_—_—_—— [Type text] age 10 Scanned with CamScannerIndian Penal Code Case Briefs = “The court noted that a person who is apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales in the spur of moment and in the heat of circumstances, the number of injurice required to ‘weapons. In moments of exeitement and disturbed to preserve composure and use exactly only so much force in retaliation commensurate with the danger apprehended to him sshere assault is imminent by use of force, it would be lawful to repel the force in self-defence Und the right of private- defence commences, as soon as the threat becomes so imminent ‘Such uations have te be pragmatially viewed and not with high-powered spectacles or micrestopeS to detect slight or even marginal overstepping. Due weightage has to be given (0, and hyper technical approach has to be avoided in considering what happens on the spur of the moment 90 the spot and Keeping in view normal human reaction and conduct, where self-preservation is the paramount consideration. But, if the fact situation shows that in the guise of self-preseryaticn, Ivhat really has been done is to assault the original aggressor, even after the cause of ‘easonable apprehension has disappeared, the plea of right of private defence can legitimately be regatived. The court dealing with the plea has to weigh the material to conclude whether the plea is acceptable. It is essentially, as noted above, a finding of fact.” —————— [Type text} Page 11 Scanned with CamScanner— Indian Penal Code Case Briefs = THEFT: 1IGN. Mehra vs. The State of Rajasthan 1957: ce and Philips Were cadets on training in the Indian Air Force Academy, Jodhpur. The ofan acne reference to an incident which is rather extraordinary being for alleged theft cme ', which, according to the evidence of the Commanding Officer, P.W. 1, has never so just thane’: The alleged theft was on May 14, 1952. Phillips was discharged from the Academy Just the previous day, ic., May 13, 1952, on grounds of misconduct oa Mey 14, 1952, admittedly Mehra and Phillips took off, not a Dakaota, but a Harvard H.T. 2 This was done before the prescribed time, i.e., at about 5 a.m. without authorisation and Without observing any of the formalities, I is also admitted that some time in the forenoon the fame day they landed at a place in Pakistan about 100 miles away from the Indo-Pakistan border. It is in the evidence of one J. C. Kapoor who was the Military Adviser to the Indian High Commissioner in Pakistan at Karachi, that Mchra and Phillips contacted him in person on the morning of May 16, 1962, at about 7 a.m, and informed him that they had lost their way and force-landed in a field, and that they left the plane there. They requested for his help to go back to Delhi. Thereupon Kapoor arranged for both of them being sent back to Delhi in an Indian ‘National Airways plane and also arranged for the Harvard aircraft being sent away to Jodhpur. ‘While they were thus on their return to Delhi on May 17, 1952, the plane was stopped at Jodhpur and they were both arrested. Commission of theft, therefore, consists in (1) moving a movable property of a person out of his Possession without his consent, (2) the moving being in order to the taking of the property with a dishonest intention. Thus (1) the absence of the person's consent at the time of moving, and (2) the presence of dishonest intention in so taking and at the time, are the essential ingredients of the offence of theft. Taking these two definitions together, a person can be said to have dishonest intention, if in taking the property it is his intention to cause gain, by unlawful means, of the property to which the person so gaining is not legally entitled or to cause loss, by wrongful means, of the property to which a person so losing is legally entitled. It is further clear from the definition that the gain or loss contemplated need not be a total acquisition or total deprivation but it is enough if it is a temporary retention of property by the person wrongfully gaining or a temporary "keeping out" of property from the person legally entitled. Though the ultimate purpose of the flight was to go to Pakistan, the use of the aircraft for that purpose and the unauthorised and hence unlawful gain of that use to the appellant and the consequent loss to the Government of its legitimate use, can only be considered intentional. 2. N. Kesavan Nair & Others vs State of Kerala 2005: id respondenU/de facto complainant, who is a practising advocate filed a complaint before Jeaisa Fi Class Magistrate allping tat after bis seniors death, he was in Possession of the jpuilding owned by petitioners 1 and 2 and he was running his office in the building. First and ‘scond petitioners demanded eviction of the building. The complainant agreed to vacate the building when he gets another building for occupation. But, before that, all the petitioners went Coenen EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEener seed Trype text] aa Scanned with CamScannerIndian Penal Code Case Briefs on to the office of the de facto complainant and asked him to vacate the building. He was also told that or else, articles which are kept inthe office would be removed. Later, a coconut was deliberately put on the building under the pretext of plucking coconuts and hence the defacto complainant fled a complaint before the Dy. S.P. On the very same evenink aso there was a threat thats les would be removed andthe building would be destroyed: © Suit was therefore filed before the Munsis Court for restraining the petitioners from

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5834)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brene Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1093)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (852)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (612)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1720)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (590)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1194)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (903)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (541)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2107)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (350)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1029)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1872)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (824)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (122)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (443)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Tóibín

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1948)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (405)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4772)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (809)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4214)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1930)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1905)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2526)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3973)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2410)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (74)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (880)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (105)
• IPIC Treaty

  

  Document16 pages

  IPIC Treaty

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet
• Introduction To Cloud Computing For Legal and Compliance Professionals

  

  Document15 pages

  Introduction To Cloud Computing For Legal and Compliance Professionals

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet
• Wips Global Manual en 2020

  

  Document164 pages

  Wips Global Manual en 2020

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet
• JC Le Corrected Version April 2008

  

  Document9 pages

  JC Le Corrected Version April 2008

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet
• Zee v. Invesco

  

  Document44 pages

  Zee v. Invesco

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet
• Kuldip Singh, Faizanuddin and K. Venkataswami, JJ

  

  Document18 pages

  Kuldip Singh, Faizanuddin and K. Venkataswami, JJ

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet
• Drafting US Patent Claims For Artificial Intelligence Inventions in Healthcare

  

  Document53 pages

  Drafting US Patent Claims For Artificial Intelligence Inventions in Healthcare

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet
• Climate

  

  Document37 pages

  Climate

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet
• S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (30.12.1981 - SC)

  

  Document584 pages

  S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (30.12.1981 - SC)

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet
• Dheeraj Mor Vs Delhi

  

  Document83 pages

  Dheeraj Mor Vs Delhi

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet
• Sowdambigai Motor Service Vs State of Tamil Nadu aT790741COM164291

  

  Document26 pages

  Sowdambigai Motor Service Vs State of Tamil Nadu aT790741COM164291

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet
• B.K. Mukherjea, C.J., B. Jagannadhadas, Vivian Bose, S.B. Sinha, and T.L. Venkatarama Aiyyar, JJ

  

  Document15 pages

  B.K. Mukherjea, C.J., B. Jagannadhadas, Vivian Bose, S.B. Sinha, and T.L. Venkatarama Aiyyar, JJ

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet
• 4.S. R. Bommai v. Union of India - Wikipedia

  

  Document8 pages

  4.S. R. Bommai v. Union of India - Wikipedia

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet
• 1.naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Wikipedia

  

  Document4 pages

  1.naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Wikipedia

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet
• 3.G Sundarrajan Vs Union of India UOI and Ors

  

  Document4 pages

  3.G Sundarrajan Vs Union of India UOI and Ors

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet
• In The Supreme Court of India: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari, Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, JJ

  

  Document1 page

  In The Supreme Court of India: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari, Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, JJ

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet
• Characteristics of Sewage PDF

  

  Document13 pages

  Characteristics of Sewage PDF

  Utsav Sharma

  No ratings yet