ANANTA DEB SINGHA MAHAPATRA AND ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 974 · Decided: 06-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANANTA DEB SINGHA MAHAPATRA AND ORS. 
v. 
STA TE OF WEST BENGAL 
JUNE 6, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D. K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
ss. 96, 97, 99, JOO and JOI-Exception to offence-Right of private 
C defence-Limit and extent of-Death of the victim of assault-Accused 
convicted u/ss. 304 (Part 11)1149 and 3231149, claiming right of private 
defence-Held: On facts, as a result of assault by accused, when victim fell 
down and there was none to attack the accused, and even then they went 
on assaulting him, and caused more harm than was necessary, they were 
D rightly found by Courts below guilty of death of the victim-Evidence Act, 
1872-s. 105 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
s. 105-Plea of private defence-Burden of proof-Held: Burden is on ' 
E the accused to show that he had a right of private defence which extended . 
to causing of death-In absence of proof, it is not possible for court to 
presume truth of plea of self-defence-Court shall presume absence of such 
circumstances-Relevant factors to be considered-Explained-Penal Code, 
1860-ss 304 (Part-11)/149. 
F 
Appellants were prosecuted for offences punishable, inter alia, under 
ss. 304(Part11)/149, 324/34 IPC. The prosecution case was that the appellants 
accompanied by 15 others started cutting paddy from the fields of P.W. 2 the 
informant, and when his father protested they assaulted him and also cut his 
fingers. Hearing the alarm raised by him, P.W. 2 and his mother, P. W. 4, 
reached there, but the accused also assaulted them. The victim succumbed to 
G his injuries the following day. The trial court found five persons, guilty of the 
offences. Four of them were convicted u/s. 304(Part11)/149, two of these four 
were additionally convicted u/s. 323/149 while the fifth was convicted u/s. 323/ 
149 IPC. In the appeal filed before the High Court, the primary stand of the 
accused was that the FIR was manipulated and ante dated and it was a tampered 
H 
974 
'( 
( 
-
ANANTA DEB·SINGHA MAHAPATRA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
975 
document. A plea of right of private defence was also raised. The High Court A 
having rejected both the please, three of the accused filed the instant appeal 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 
HELD: 1. So far as the plea relating to FIR is concerned, it can be seen 
that the High Court has referred to the evidence of PW-16 and PW-4 and B 
rightly concluded that there was no substance in the plea relating to 
manipulation of the FIR [Para 811978-CJ 
2.1. To claim a right of private defence extending to voluntarily causing 
of death, the accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to 
reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would C 
be caused to him The burden is on the accused to show that he had a right of 
private defence which extended to causing of de'lth. Sections 100 and 101, 
IPC define the limit and extent of right of private defence. 
!Para 121 [981-A, BJ 
Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, AIR (1963) SC 612, relied on. 
D 
2.2. Under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof 
is on the accused, who sets up the plea of self-defence, and, in the absence of 
proof, it is not possible for the Court to presume the truth of the plea of self-
defence. The Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. It is E 
for the accused to place necessary material on record either by himself 
adducing positive evidence or by eliciting necessary facts from the witnesses 
examined for the prosecution. In order to find whether right of private defence 
is available or not, the injuries received by the accused, the imminence of 
threat to his safety, the injuries caused by the accused and the circumstances 
whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are all F 
relevant factors to be considered. 1979-B, C; 981-D, E) 
I Paras 10 and 14] 
Salim Zia v. State of UP. AIR (1979) SC 391; Munshi Ram & Ors. v. 
Delhi Administration AIR, (1968) SC 702; State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima, 
AIR (1975) SC 14'78; State of UP. v. Mohd. Musheer Khan, AIR (1977) SC G 
2226; Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, AIR (1979) SC 57; Lakshmi 
Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR (1976) SC 2263; Biran Singh v. State of Bihar, 
AIR (1975) SC 87and Sekar @ Raja Sekharan v. State represented by 
Jnspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, (2002) 7 Supreme 124, relied on. 
H 
976 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
2.3. In the instant case, the High Court noted that the victim fell down 
in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.