KASHI RAM AND ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 263 · Decided: 17-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KASHI RAM AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATEOFM.P. 
OCTOBER 17, 2001 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
Sections 96, 97, 99, JOO, 101and102: 
Accused charged with murder and causing injuries'___One of the accused 
also injured in the incident-Trial Court, disbelieved the testimony of the 
prosecution witnesses as to genesis of the incident and drawing an inference 
that members of prosecution party opened an attack on accused and accused 
opened fire in exercise of right of private defence and ordered acquittal of all 
the accused-High Court reversing it-On appeal held, all accused except one 
exceeding his right of private' defence-The accused who exceeded his right of 
private defence convicted-Others acquitted. 
Plea of self defence--,-When could be taken-It can be taken at any stage 
of the trial including cross examination, recording of statements of the accused 
c 
D 
by adducing defence evidence and during the course of submission, relying on 
E 
probabilities and circumstances. 
Self defence-Extent of-Extends to causing death so long as apprehen-
sion continues-Can be exercised for defence of person or property of another 
as well. 
Ss. I48-149-Unlawful assembly and right of private defence-So long 
as accused act in right of private defence their object of assembly is not 
considered unlawful-However when they exceed their right of private de.fence 
the assembly becomes unlawful-Even in such situations, only such members 
who exceeded such right of private defence alone would be liable to be 
punished. 
Evidence Act, 1872 : 
S.105-Burden of proof-Scope and ambit of-The burden on the ac-
cused is not so heavy as on the prosecution-If on material available on record 
F 
G 
a preponderance of probabilities is raised which renders the plea of the accused 
H 
263 
264 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
plausible, same should be accepted and benefit of doubt should be extended to 
the accused persons. 
B 
Appeal-lnte~ference by High Court-When High Court deals into an 
appeal against acquittal and if two views are reasonably possible, one support-
ing the acquittal, other recording a conviction, it would not interfere merely 
because it.feels that sitting a Trial Court its view would have been.for recording 
conviction. 
Eight accused persons/appellants were tried by Trial Court on charges 
u/s. 148, 302, 302 read with Sections 149, 324 read with Section 149 Indian 
C 
Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, allegedly for 
assaulting and killing three persons and injuring others .. According to the 
prosecution the incident took place when accused started unloading mus-
tard straw and allegedly spreading the same on common pathway of 
village. When complainant protested, the accused came out armed with 
D 
weapons and assaulted complainants resulting in the death of 3. persons 
including one stranger and injuring others. Injured includes one of the 
accused. 
The Trial Court observed that injuries of all the three persons, who 
died in the incident were caused when they were in front of· the house of 
E 
one of the accused 'R' and held that there was an unsuccessful attempt on 
the part of prosecution witnesses to shift the place of incident from near 
the house of the accused to a distant place near the house of prosecution 
witnesses. The Trial Court analysed the prominent features of the case i.e. 
non-examination of any independent witness, the testimony of the prosecu-
F 
G 
tion witnesses having been found to be unreliable as to genesis of the 
incident, complete non-explanation by the prosecution witnesses of the 
injuries sustained by one of the accused and other accused 'R' firing in 
exercise of right of private defence and concluded that none of the accused 
persons could be said to have committed any offence and directed their 
acquittal. On appeal, by the complainant, High Court set aside the acquit-
tal of accused persons and convicted them. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants-accused, it was contended that factum of 
accused having sustained serious injuries on the vital parts of the body was 
well established and that the injuries had been received in the same inci-
H 
dent in which complainants suffered injuries and such injuries were not 
KASH! RAM v. STATE 
265 
explained by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution story 
A 
should have been discarded and accused should have been acquitted. 
Partly allowin

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