GOPAL & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 385 · Decided: 18-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 1 S.C.R. 385 
GOPAL & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1156 of 2007) 
JANUARY 18, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 96, 97, 100, 102, 105 and s.302 
A 
B 
rlw s. 34 - Double murder - Fight between two rival groups -
Death of two persons 'R' and 'P' due to lathi blows inflicted by C 
the appellants - Evidence of injured eye-witnesses (PW-7 and 
PW-8) and son of 'P' (PW~10) - Conviction of appellants u/ 
s. 302 rlw s. 34 /PC - Challenge to - Appellants taking plea of 
right of private defence~ Held: 'R', PW-7 and PW-8 had gone 
to the field of the appellants and there was a fight between 
D 
both the groups - Appellants fought to repel the attack and 
in course of the incident, both sides sustained injuries, as a 
result of which, 'R' died - In the circumstances, appellants 
entitled to plea of private defence insofar as death of 'R' was 
concerned, however, they had no right to invoke the right of E 
self defence by chasing 'P' and causing fatal injuries on him 
- 'P' was not present at the place where 'R' was assaulted -
After inflicting injuries on the person of 'R', the appellants ran 
towards 'P', who was standing 10 steps away from the place 
of incident - Reasonable apprehension from the side of the 
F 
appellants disappeared when they noticed that 'P' was running 
away from the scene in order to escape - Appellants 
exceeded their limit when they chased 'P' at some distance, 
pushed him down and inflicted several blows with /athis due 
to which he died - Conviction of appellants u/s.302 rlw s.34 G 
/PC and the life sentence awarded to them, thus, justified -
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 105. 
The prosecution case was that grudge over a money 
settlement agreement resulted in a fight between two rival 
385 
H 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 
A groups, in course of which two persons, 'R' and 'P' were 
beaten to death by the accused party with /athi blows. 
There were in all six accused persons including the two 
appellants (A-1 and A-3). In support of their claim, the 
prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of PW-7 and 
B PW-8 - injured eye-witnesses and PW-10 - son of 'P'. The 
trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 
read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous 
imprisonment (RI) for life. In appeal, High Court confirmed 
the conviction and sentence imposed upon the two 
c appellants, and therefore the instant appeal. 
The appellants raised the following contentions 
before this Court: 1) that members of the complainant's 
party were the aggressors and they came to the field of 
the accused persons and attacked them; 2) that the 
D appellants also received injuries at the hands of the 
complainant's party and the prosecution had failed to 
explain the same and 3) that since the members of the 
complainant's party were the aggressors and attacked on 
the accused persons causing injuries to the appellants, 
E the accused had a right of private defence, consequently, 
they were entitled for acquittal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1 The materials placed and relied on by the 
prosecution show that 'R', PW-7 and PW-8 had gone to 
the field of the appellants and there was a fight between 
both the groups. It is also clear that the appellants fought 
to repel the attack and in the course of incident, both 
sides sustained injuries, as a result of which, 'R' died. In 
G such circumstances, it would be possible for this Court 
to accept the claim of the appellants that since they were 
defending themselves, they had a right of private defence. 
[Para 12] [393-F-H; 394-A] 
H 
1.2. Under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the 
GOPAL & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
387 
burden of proof is on the accused, who sets up the plea 
A 
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. Where the right of private defence is 
pleaded, the defence must be a reasonable and probable 
version satisfying the court that the harm caused by the 
B 
accused was necessary for either warding off the attack 
or for forestalling the further reasonable apprehension 
from the side of the accused. It is true that the burden on 
an accused person to establish the plea of self-defence 
is not as onerous as the one which lies on the c 
prosecution and that while the prosecution is required to 
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused 
need 

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