BATHUSINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 785 · Decided: 25-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

BA THUSINGH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
AUGUST 25, 2004 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 3021148, 96 and 99: 
Prosecution for murder-Prosecution case supported by 3 C 
eyewitnesses-Corroborated by Medical evidence-Plea of self defence by 
accused-Conviction by Courts below-On appeal, held: Accused liable 
to be convicted as the offence proved by ocular evidence is corroborated 
by medical evidence-Defence version not proved-Even otherwise accused 
not entitled to right of private defence as assault was exceedingly vindictive 
and maliciously excessive. 
Right of Private Defence-Nature of Held : It is not a right of 
reprisal or punishment-It is subject to restrictions indicated in 
Section 99. 
Appellants-acr.used, alongwith other accused were alleged to have 
caused death of two persons. In the incident two persons also got 
injured. There were three eye-witnesses to the incident namely PWs 
1, 2 and 3. Medical evidence corroborated the version of eye-witnesses 
D 
E 
so far as participation of the appellants were concerned. During trial, F 
accused took the plea of self defence. Their version was that the victim 
party had set their crops on fire and assaulted them, and they attacked 
the victim party as a revenge. They examined five witnesses in support 
of their case. Trial Court convicted accused No. 1 and the appellants 
u/s. 302/148 IPC and other accused were convicted u/s. 302 r/w. 149 
and 148 IPC. High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants G 
and acquitted the other accused. 
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that they were liable 
to be acquitted as they had resorted to the act in self defence and that 
the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 
H 
785 
786 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. So far as the appellants are concerned, there is 
overwhelming ocular evidence on record duly corroborated by the 
medical evidence and the statement of PW-1, to prove their offence. 
B 
[790-E) 
c 
2.1. There is no evidence on record much less to establish the rlefence 
version of acting in self defence, which is a defence which was set up at 
a very late stage. The statements of the defence witnesses are also not 
helpful to the appellants. The appellant have not established their plea 
of private defence by preponderance of probabilities. The appellants 
have not laid any foundation in cross-examination of the prosecution 
witnesses as well as in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and by 
pointing out positive circumstances from the legally proved prosecution 
evidence which could establish their case of self defence of property and 
D person by preponderance of probabilities. [790-H; 791-A-C] 
2.2. A right of private defence given by the Penal Code is 
essentially one of defence or self protection and not a right of reprisal 
or punishment. It is subject to the restrictions indicated in Section 99 
E IPC which are important as the right itself. In the instant case, the 
assault on both the deceased was exceedingly vindictive and maliciously 
excessive. Under these circumstances the appellants were not entitled 
for right of private defence and two persons were done to death by the 
appellants without there being apy imminent danger to their property 
F or lives. [791-C-D) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 
1295-1296 of 2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.2002 of the Madhya 
G Pradesh High Court in Cr!. A. No. 697 of 1995 and Cr!. A. No. 831 of 
1995. 
Vidya Dhar Gaur for the Appellants. 
H 
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. 
BATHUSINGH v. STATE [LAK.SHMANAN, J.] 
787 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : These appeals are directed against 
the judgment and order dated 19.4.2002 passed by the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal appeal Nos. 697 and 831 
A 
of 1995 whereby the High Court has partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. B 
697 of 1995 by acquitting appellant No. I, Balu Singh, appellant No. 5, 
Richhu, appellant No. 6, Bhangdibai and appellant No. 7, Nanbai of the 
offence they were charged and the appeal of appellant No. 2, Bathusingh, 
appellant No.3, Nar Singh and appellant No. 4, Bhal Singh was dismissed. 
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
The appellants and the deceased persons as well as PW-I, Sardar 
Singh, PW-2, Jagat Singh and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.