MOHAMMAD KHAN & ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 152 · Decided: 21-10-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

152 
MOHAMMAD KHAN & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
October 21, 1971 
(J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA ANDS. C. Roy, JJ.] 
/11c/ian Penal Cude, ss. 96 tu 106---Scopc-RiRht of Private de/c11ce-
Exercisl' of the right n·/u:n justified. 
B 
The inhabitants of village S who were all Muslims were divided into 
two groups. 
The relations between them were very. muc.h strain~ : so 
much so that one group ·felt compelled to leave that village and shift to a 
new site for residence where they formed a new village called NS. The 
C 
old village S was thereafter called JS. Differences between the two groups, 
however, remained unresolved and the bitterness did not abate. 
On the 
day of Id in February, 1965 residents of both the above villages went to 
Sanwar Mosque for offering prayers. 
The people from the old village 
(JS) had to pass through the new village (NS) for going to the Mosque. 
After the prayers when the inhabitants of JS were returning to their village 
they were confronted by armed inhabitants of NS at the outskirts of their 
village. 
There were attacks and counter-attacks between the rival groups 
D 
belonging to the two villages resulting in casualties and a1so injuries to 
several persons on both sides. This occurrence gave rise to two crdss-cases 
and both groups were separately tried by the same Judge. The prosecution 
succeeded in securing conviction of some accused persons in both the 
cases. The plea of the right of private defence raised by both sides was 
rejected. 
On appeal in the High Court both sides repeated their plea df self-
E 
defence which was negatived. 
On appeal by special leave. 
HELD: (i) the people of village JS had a right to for prayers to 
Sanwar Mosque on the day of Id and merely because the only route to the 
Mosque passed through village NS the inhabitants of which were inimical 
towards them, they could not be deprived of the right to use that route. 
F 
When in the lawful and bonafide exercise of their right to go back from 
the Mosque to their village by that route the inhabitants of village JS were 
confronted by the inhabitants of village NS who, armed with dangerous 
weapons, were waiting for them,. they were fu1ly justified in using force in 
defending themselves against unlawful aggression. 
When enacting ss. 96 to l 06. l.P.C. the legislature clearly intendod to 
arouse and encourage manly spirit Of self-defence amongst the citizens, 
G 
when faced with grave danger. 
The right of private defence is designed 
to serve a social purpose and deserves to be fostered within the prescribed 
Jimits. On the facts and circumstances of the case the people from villages 
.JS are held to have justifiably exercised the right of self defence and the 
appeal is allowed and the appellaots (Cr. A. No. 204 of 1967) acquitted. 
[ 160 B] 
(ii). As regards the other appeal (Cr. A. No. ~3/68) since the people 
H 
from village NS were agl?l"essors, they had no right of p·rivate defence 
against the people from village JS and accordingly Cr. A. No. 83/68 fails 
and is dismis.sed. 
A 
MOHD. KHAN v. M.P. STATE (Dua, /.) 
153 
G. V. S. Subramanyam v. State of A.P., A.LR. 1970 S.C. 1079, rdferr· 
eel tn. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal Appeals 
N9s. 204 of 1967 and 83 of 1968. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
B February 27, 1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore 
Bench m Criminal Appeals ,Nos. 238 and 249 of 1965. 
R. L. Kohli, for the appel!ants (in Cr. A. No. 204 of 1967). 
Ganpat E.ai and S. K. Sabharwal, for the appellants in Cr. A. 
C 
No. 83 of 1968). 
M. N. Shroff and I. N. Shroff, for the respondent (in both 
the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dua, J. 
These 
two appeals by special leave arise out of 
D 
common judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which 
disposed of two criminal appeals by two rival factions belong· 
ing to two different villages situated at a small distance from 
each other which were involved in the occurrence in question 
dated February 4, 1965. 
E 
Village Siloda in Tehsil Sanwer, district Indore was inha-
bited by Muslims but it was divided into two gtoups, the rela· 
lions between whom were strained and differences rose to such 
a pitch that one group felt compelled to leave the village and 
shift to a ne\Y site for their residence. The new village formed 
by this group was called Naya Siloda. 
The original 
village 
F 
Siloda was thereafter given ~he name of Juna Siloda. It appears 
that in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.