BRIJ LAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2016] 7 S.C.R. 176 · Decided: 17-08-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 176 
BRJJ LAL 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 991 of2010) 
AUGUST 17, 20 I 6 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Murder - Prosecution case was 
that appellant and PW-15 were both employed in the same 
department - Appellant used to hurl abuses at PW-15 under the 
influence of liquor - D.ue to this, PW-15 shifted and took house of 
PW-1 on rent - On the fateful day, appellant and co-accused armed 
with pistols came to the new residence of PW-15 and started hurling 
abuses at PW-15 and threatened to kill him - PW-I asked him to go 
away - Hearing commotion, the neighbours and co-villagers 
requested the appellant and co-accused to go away - Thereafter, 
appellant fired at the gathering - Two persons received bullet 
injuries from the shots fired by him - One died on the spot and 
other received serious injuries and died the next day - Co-accused 
also fired from his gun which hit a woman who died on the spot and 
two others including a 5 year old child received injuries - Trial 
court accepted plea of self defence raised by appellant and ordered 
acquittal - However, High Court held him guilty uls.302 - On 
appeal, held: Evidence· produced by the prosecution affirmed that 
the crowd which had gathered at the place of occurrence 
comprised of men, women and children who were unarmed - It 
cannot be overlooked, that one of the deceased was a woman, and 
one of the injured was 5 years old - Thus, no material evidence 
was produced by appellant to demonstrate that gunshots fired by 
him was in self-defence - Recovery of the weapon was also made 
at the instance of the appellalll - The fact, that there was a distance 
of about 17 to 18 feet between the appellant and the villagers, shows 
that there was no real threat to him when he fired shots at the 
unarmed gathering - Prosecution witnesses, duly identified the 
accused-appellant - The statements of the prosecution witnesses 
clearly led to the inference, that the appellant was guilty of having 
committed the offence u/s.302 - Appellant-accused not entitled to 
benefit of doubt. 
176 
. BRIJ LAL v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is evidence on the record of the case to 
authenticate, that all the villagers were only persuading the 
accused-appellant his co-accused not to insist on carrying out 
their threat, to murder PW-15. The testimony of the prosecution 
witnesses also demonstrates, that there was substantial distance 
between tht Yillagers, and the place where the accused were 
standing. Not only PW-1, but also PW- 15, expressly deposed 
that none of the neighbours and co-villagers, was armed. 
Moreover, the reiteration by the witnesses, that the crowd 
comprised of men, women and children, by itself is sufficient, to 
infer that the neighbours and co-villagers were not aiming at 
causing any harm or injury to the accused-appellant or the 
co-accused. It cannot be overlooked, that one of the deceased 
was a woman, and one of the injured was a child of 5 years. Thus, 
no material evidence was produced by the appellant (to 
demonstrate that gunshots fired by the accused and the co-accused 
were in self-defence. [Para 15] [193-C-F] 
2. It was not disputed by the accused-appellant that three 
fatal (besides other) injuries, were caused by the accused-
appellant and his co-accused. Therefore, the onus lay on the 
appellant to demonstrate the reason and the justification for their 
action. The evidence produced by the prosecution demonstrated 
that the accused had fired gunshots indiscriminately, on being 
angered by the gathering, which was trying to persuade them 
from carrying out their singular objective - to cause harm to the 
person of PW-15. Having accepted, that they had actually fired 
at the neighbours and the villagers, who had gathered at the place 
of occurrence, it does not lie in their mouth to raise such a plea. 
[Para 18] (195-G-H; 196-A] 
3. The next contention for the appellant was, that the 
recovery of the weapon, namely, the gun, with which the accused-
a ppellan t shot at the crowd, was not proved to have been 
recovered from the appellant. Such a plea could have been raised 
only if the appellant had been in denial, and had adopted the 
stance, that he had not fired at the crowd at the time of 
occurrence. Since that is not his plea, the instant submission is 
wholly misconceived. [Para 19] [f96-B-D] 
177 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F

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