LexDWARKA PRASAD versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A OW ARKA PRASAD v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH FEBRUARY 23, 1993 B (K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) ,l. Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302, 307, 34-Charged unde,-Apprecia- tion of evidence-f'rosecution case-Free fight not proved-/njuries found on the person of the accused-Significance of-Delay in lodging FIR-£ffect c of-Motive disclosed by prosecutiotr-Acceptability of-Accused's versiotr- Probability of. Penal Code, 1860 : Section 97 read with Section 105, _....., Evidence Ac~ i 872 : Right of private defence-When available-Ac· D cused causing injury with a Ballam in the chest of the victim resulting death-Whether right of private defence available. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 : Section 313 - Statement made by accused under-Duty of Court while using. E The prosecution's case was that on the date of occumnce, the p.w.2 )-- and the deceased were returning after answering the call of nature at abont 6 P .M. At that time the appellant along with co-accused came there. Seeing the p.w.2 and the deceased the accused came rushed towards them with knives. Appellant chased the deceased and gave a knife blow on his chest. The P.W .2 -- F received a knife blow from the co-accused. Thereafter the accused fled away. The victim dilod on the way while he was being taken to Debai. The P.W. 2. lodged the first information report on the same night at abont 11.30 P.M. - The motive for the occurrence was that aboot 10 or 12 days before the date of occurrence, the appellant abnsed the P.W .2 and the deceased. G They gave two/three slaps to the appellant. The app.ellant-accused's case was that for last two days prior to the date of occumnce the crop of his grand-father was being damaged. ~ Therefore, he was keeping a watch on the field. Doring night the P .W .2 and the deceased eame to the field. Seeing them, the appellant raised an alarm H Chor-Chor. They started running. The appellant chased them to catch ?O - - DWARKA PRASAD v. STATE OF U.P. 71 them. But they turned back and started assaulting the appellant with A lathies. The appellant attacked them with a 'ballam' to save his life. The injuries on the person of the appellant were examined, in the next morning. He filed an application before tbe Superintendent of Police and a case was registered at about 10.25 A.M. on the next day of the date of occurrence on the basis of appellant's petition. The trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the penal Code. B The State's appeal was allowed by the High Court and the present appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Penal Code and was C sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Present appeal was filed by the accused against the High Court's · judgment. The State contended that if the version of appellant was accepted, it D would amount to a case offree light between the prosecution party and the accused, both being armed and that in a case of free fight no party could .claim right of private defence. Partly allowing the appeal, this court, HELD: 1.01. A free fight is that when both sides mean to fight a pitched battle. The question of who attacks and who defends in such a fight is wholly immaterial and depends on the tactics adopted by the rival party. In such cases of mutual fights, both sides can be convicted for their individual acts, [76E] 1.02. So far the facts of the present case are concerned, if the version disclosed by the accused can be held to be a probable version of the occurrence then it cannot be held tO be a case of free light. [76G] E F 1.03. In any particular case the injuries found on the person of the accused being serious in nature may assume importance in respect of the G genesis and manner of occurrence alleged by the prosecution. In other case the injuries being superficial, by themselves may not affect the prosecution case; the version disclosed by the prosecution ,having been proved by witnesses who are independent, reliable and trustworthy, supported by the circumstances of that particular case, including the promptness with H 72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 2 S.C.R. A which the first information report was lodged on behalf of the prosecution. B But if the first information report has not been lodged promptly and there is no reasonable explanation for the delay; the witnesses who support the version of the prosecution are not only inimical but eve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.