LexN.G. SREEDHARAN AND ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
N.G. SREEDHARAN AND ANR.
A
v.
STATE OF KERALA
DECEMBER 13, 1995
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]
B
Indian Penal Code 1860 :
Ss. 302/34 & 149. 143, 147,148, 341-Murder-Acquittal of all accused
as accused persons also sustained injurie:r-High Court reversing the acquittal C
of two of the accused-Convicting and sentencing them under
s.302/34-Upholding acquittal of others-On appeal conviction and sentence
recorded under s.302134 set asidl:-One accused convicted u/s 302 IPC
simpliciter and sentenced to life imprisonment
The head load workers of Trichur Taluk belonged to two different D
trade Unions. The two deceased.brothers V and D belonged to one Union
and accused belonged to a rival Union. A dispute arose between the
members of the two Unions over unloading of a lorry and the work
stopped. V, being the treasurer of the Union accompanied by P.W. 1 went
to the Union headquarters to seek its advice. On their return Al called V E
aside under the pretext of discussing the issue; but was soon snrronnded
by members of the rival Union. An altercation followed and Al shouted
that V was the trouble maker and should be done away with. V brandished
a knife and tried to run away bot was caught and stabbed by Al. A2 beat
V with an arecanut split on various parts of the body. When D, the brother
of V rushed to his rescue, he was also stabbed by Al. Both the brothers V F
and D died soon after.
The accused were charged with for offences under Ss. 143, 147, 148,
341, 302/147 IPC. The trial ended in acquittal of all ·the accused. State
preferred an appeal, and the High Court reversed the acquittal of Al and G
A2 convicted and sentenced them under S. 302/34 IPC, but upheld the
acquittal of others. Hence this appeal by Al and A2.
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Both the appellants were found to have sustained injuries H
647
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A when examined by the Assistant Surgeon of District Hospital. While Al
sustained one penetrating wound 1 "x 1/2" on the right side of the chest A2
sustained four, of which two were incised and the other two were penetrat-
ing wounds. The eye-witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution
however did not offer any explanation as to how the two appellants
B sustained those stab injuries. Nonetheless their evidence discloses that
when the altercation started between him and the appellants, V was found
to brandish a knife which be had with him. Judged in that light the
appellants were entitled to raise the plea of the right of private defence of
their persons apprehending threat of assault with the knife so brandished
in view of Section 102 IPC, which provides that right of private defence of
C the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to
the body arises from an att •. ":·t or threat to commit the offence ('assault'
in the instant case) though the offence may not have been committed, and
it continues so long as apprehension of danger to the body continues. The
evidence further discloses that not only the threat was imminent but the
D apprehension of the two appellants of being assaulted by V was also a
reasonable one-and indeed, it ultimately turned into a reality. Then again,
considering the nature of injuries sustained by them, it cannot also be said,
in view of Section 100 IPC, that they had exceeded their right of private
defence in causing the death of V. Thus the convictiul.
0 ::;! sentence of the
two appellants for the murder of V cannot be supported.
E
(652-F-H, 653-A-C]
Deo Narain v. State of U.P., (1973] 1 SCC 341, relied on.
2. It is the consistent case of the eye-witnesses that when V fell down
on being assaulted by Al and A2, D who was sitting in a nearby tea shop,
F
rushed to his brother's rescue. Al then stabbed him with the knife as a
result of which he fell down dead. There is not an iota of material on record
to show that D had any weapon with him or that he was a party to the
fracas that took place between the appellants and V earlier. Therefore,
there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case as to the manner in
G which D met with his death, more so, when the eye-witnesses account in
this respect stand corroborated by the medical evidence. Al also cannot
lay any claim that his apprehension of danger to his body continued even
after V bad dropped his knife and himself fallen down, so as to entitle him
to exercise his right of defencExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.