BHAGWAN SWAROOP versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 31-01-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
BHAGW AN SW AROOP 
V. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
JANUARY 31,1992 
[KULDIP SINGH AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.) 
Penal Code,1860-Sections 96,100-4iight of private d~fence-Lathi 
blows i~flicted on father by complainant party-Apprehension of danger 
to his life-Firing a guµ shol at that time by son-Whether right of 
private dlfence can be claimed. 
Arms Act, 1959--Section 25A-Conviction under-Using of father's 
licensed gun by son to save life of father-Whether acq11i1tal proper. 
The deceased along with his father and brother was living in 
the house owned by the accused appellant's father. 
There was dispute between the accused and the complainant 
party regarding a piece of land which according to the accused, the 
complainant party was forcibly occupying. 
" 
On May 11, 1969 at about 2.45 p.m. appellant's father had an 
_._ 
E 
altercation with deceased's brother. Thereafter he went to deccased's 
F 
G 
house and ahused the complainant party and started dismantling 
the tin-shed on the disputed land. 
The prosecution's case was that the deceased's brother was 
sent to the police station to lodge a report. The deceased came at 
the spot and gave a push to appellant's father. He fell down. Get-
ting up, immediately, shouted for appellant and asked him to bring 
the rifle and kill the complainant party. The appellant brought a 
gun and fired a shot hitting the deceased. the appellant fired the 
second shot which hit another. The deceased fell down and thereaf-
ter the deceased's father took out a lathi and gave beating to appel-
lant's father. The deceased succumbed to the gunshot injury. 
Appellant was charged under Sections 302, 307, 451 !PC and 
al.so under section 25-A of Arms Act. The father of appellant was 
charged under sections 109/302, 451 !PC and 29 of the Arms Act. 
H 
The appellant and his father denied the commission of the 
466 
BHAGWAN SWAROOI' '" STATE 
467 
crime. Appellant's plea of alibi was rejected by the trial court. It 
also did not believe the prosecution case in toto. 
The appellant's father was acquitted of all the charges by the 
trial court. It convicted the appellant under section 302 lPC and he 
was sentenced to imprisonment for life, hut he was acquitted of the 
other charges. 
The High Court allowed the State's appeal convicting the ap-
pellant under section 307 !PC and section 25-A Arms Act also. He 
was sentenced to five years and one year rigorous imprisonment 
respectively for the offences. 
The appellant filed this appeal before this Court by way of 
special leave. 
On the question, whether on the facts of the case. the appel-
-
. 
. 
I ant-accused can claim right of private defence, allo,ving the appeal, 
this Court, 
HELD: I. It is established on the record that the appellant's 
father was being given lathi blows by the complainant party and it 
was at that time that gun-shot was fired hy the appellant to save his 
father from further blows. A lathi is capable of causing a simple as 
well as a fatal injury. Whether in fact the injuries actually caused 
were simple or grievous is of no consequence. It is the scenario of a 
father being given lathi blows which has to be kept in mind. Jn such 
a situation a son could reasonably apprehend danger to the life of 
his father and his firing a gun-shot at that point of time in defence 
of his father is justified. The appellant fired the gun-shot to defend 
the person of his father. [470 E-G] 
2. 
Using the licensed gun of his father under the circum-
sfances of the case cannot be considered possessing an arm without 
a licence. The High Court grossly. erred in setting aside the acquit-
A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
tal of the appellant under section 25-A of the Arms Act. [471 A-BJ 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURJSDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.273-
74 of 1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.1.1980 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in Ct!. A. Nos. I 07 of 1970 and I of 1971. 
H 
468 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] I S.C.R 
A 
R.L. Kohli and K.C. Kohli for the Appellants. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Uma Nath Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP ·s1NGH, J. Bhagwan Swaroop was charged under Section 
302 lPC for the murder of Man Singh and under Section 307 !PC for an 
attempt to murder Shahid. He was further charged under section 451 !PC 
for committing trespass and also under section 25-A of Arms Act. 
Ramswaroop, father of Bhagwan Swaroop, was charged under sections 
109/302, 451 !PC and 29 of the Arms Act. Ramswaroop was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.