JALARAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 449 · Decided: 24-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

JALARAM 
A' 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
NOVEMBER 24, 2005 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 147, '302 and 323114.9: 
Right to private defence-Victims/four brothers trespassing into the 
field of one of the accused-Accused allegedly inflicted fatal injury on the C 
deceased and also assaulted his three brothers-Trial Court found one of the 
accused guilty of the offences under Sections 147, 302 and 3231149 IPC; five 
others for offences punishable under Ss.147, 302 and 3251149 /PC and 
sentenced them accordingly but acquitted three accused persons-High Court 
confirmed the conviction and sentence against the accused-appellant and D 
held two others guilty for commission of offences punishable under Section 
323 /PC and converted their sentence accordingly but acquitted one-On 
appeal, Held: Since right of way on the field belonging to one of the accused 
persons not established, apprehension of threat to trespass the field by the 
deceased and his brothers in the mind of the accused could not be ruled 
out-Only a lathi blow hurled by the accused-appellant on the forehead of E 
the deceased-No motive on the part of the accused person in committing the 
offence has been established-Prosecution failed to prove that the accused 
were aggressors-Non-explanation of injurieS on the person of accused by 
the prosecution gives credibility to the right of private defence as claimed 
by the accused-However, the accused failed to establish that apprehension F 
of threat to trespass was of such a degree . which would justify the injury 
inflicted by him on the deceased with such a force that he breathed his last 
on the spot-Thus, the accused exceeded his right of private defence-Hence, 
he is guilty of the offen;:e under Section 304 Part-/ and convicted and 
sentenced accordingly. 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day when PWS along with 
his three brothers including the deceased had been passing through the field 
of one of the accused persons for grazing the cattle, the appellant/another 
accused along with five others assaulted them with lathies. The appellant had 
449 
G 
H 
450 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R . 
. A allegedly given a lathi blow on the head of the deceased who died on the spot 
PW5, one of the brothers of the deceased, lodged the First Information Report 
in the Police Station against all the accused persons. Although the appellant 
was named in the First Information Report, no charge-sheet was submitted 
against him as also against three other accused persons. But charge-sheet 
B for commission of offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 302, 323 read 
with Section 149 IPC was submitted against five other accused persons. 
However, after examination of two prosecution witnesses and on an application 
made in this behalf, charges were amended against all the accused. The Trial 
Court acquitted three accused persons (Al, 4 and 5 respectively) but found 
the appellant guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 
C 147, 302 and 323/149 IPC and the other five accused persons for offences 
punishable under Sections 147, 302/149 and 325/149 IPC and sentenced them 
accordingly. Appeals preferred thereagainst by the accused were heard by a 
Division Bench of the High Court and only the Appellant alone was held guilty 
for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and the other 
accused persons were acquitted. The High Court, however, held two other 
D accused guilty of commission of an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC 
for causing hurt and sentenced them to the period already undergone. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Accused-appellant contended that having regard to the fact that ten 
E simple injuries had been inflicted by both the parties on each other, only 
because the Appellant has inflicted an injury causing death of the deceased 
would not lead to the conclusion that the Appellant had any motive therefor; 
and that it is not a case where several blows were hurled on the deceased or 
other prosecution witnesses so as.to· arrive at a conclusion that the Appellant 
had the requisite mens rea. 
F 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The right of way on the agricultural land belonging to one 
of the accused has not been established. If there was no established right of 
way by way of easement or otherwise and if there had been an appreMnsion 
G in the mind of the accused that there was a threat of trespass in the

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