LexJAMES MARTIN versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A JAMES MARTIN v. STATE OF KERALA DECEMBER 16, 2003 B . [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: Sections 304 Part I, 326, 324, 96, 100 and 103-Bundh called all over C the count1y-Floor l'vfill owned by father and son operational in the area- Bandh activists unlawfully entered the mill and demanded the employee to close the mill and thereafter assaulted him-Firing by son on instigation by father which resulted in death of two activists-Injuries sustained by other activists and also passersby on the road-Violent mob set the properties of the father and son on fire--Prosecution version that prop- D erties set on fire after the firing by son whereas defence version that it was done phor to the firing by son-Trial Court held father and son exceeded right o.f private defence in its exercise-High Court upheld the order with regard to son-On appeal held: Acts done by the son were within the reasonable limits of exercise of his right of private defence-Hence, E conviction and sentence set aside. Sections 96, 100 and 103-Right of private defence-Scope and object-Held: Exercise of right of private defence is to be determined on facts and circumstances of each case-Court must consider all circum- F stances-No abstract test can be laid down-Right commences as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises and it lasts so long as danger to the body continues-}Jumber of injuries is not a safe criteria for determining the aggressor-Non-explanation of injuries sustained at the time of occurrence is an important circumstance-Burden to prove the plea of private defence is on the accused-Burden is discharged by G showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of his plea on basis of material on record-Furthermore, the right of private defence should not be construed narrowly-Evidence Act, 1872-Section I 05. According to the prosecution, some of the political parties called H Bharat Bundh. In a particular place Bundh activists were checking 910 - JAMES MARTIN v. ST ATE OF KERALA 911 · about the observance of the Bundh. Appellant-accused and his father A had their residence, factory and flour mill in that area in compound. The activists came to know that the employee of the father and the son was operating the mill. Some of the Bundh activists including the prosecution witnesses got into the floor mill by scaling the wall and demanded the employee to close down the mill. An altercation took B place between them and on hearing the commotion appellant-Al and his father -A-2 came out from their residence and directed the activists to go out of the mill. However the activists persisted in their demands. A-2 directed A-1 to take out the gun from the house and shoot down the activits. A-1 fired at the activists causing injuries to them. Passersby on the road also sustained injuries. People of the locality rushed to the C scene of occurrence and took the injured to the hospital. Two activists succumbed to their injuries. Thereafter, a violent mob which collected at the scene of occurrence set fire to the properties of the accused. Accused took the stand that they resorted to firing after their properties were set on fire by the bundh activists when the accused failed to meet D their unlawful demand to close down the floor mill. Trial Court held that the accused exceeded their right of private defence in its exercise and convicted the appellant-accused under section 304 Part-I, 326 and 324 IPC and his father under section 304 Part I read with section 34, section 326 read with Section 34, 324 IPC and sentenced them E accordingly. High Court upheld the order with regard to the appellant and gave benefit of dot.bt to the father. Hence the present appeals. Appellant contended that the factual scenario clearly shows as to how the bundh activists forcibly entered the premises of the appellant F and the appellant was faced. with their violent acts and his employee was inflicted serve injuries; and that in this background the accused acted in exercise of right of private defence and there was no question of exceeding such right. Respondent-State contended that the trial court and High Court G have rightly h.eld that the accused exceeded the right of private defence; and that when two persons had lost their lives, it cannot be said that the act done by the accused was within the permissible limits. Allowing the appeals, the Court H 912 SUPREME COURT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.