LexNAGARATHINAM AND ORS. versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
NA GARA THINAM AND ORS. A v. ST A TE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE APRIL 5, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B Penal Code 1860-Sections 147, 148, 324, 302, 307, 149 and 34- Fight between two groups-Accused and prosecution witnesses sustained stab injuries--Two died in the fight-Plea of self defence raised by the accused-Trial Court convicted the accused for murder under section 302 C read with section 149 1PC and for other charges-High Court convicted the accused under section 302 read with section 34 !PC after holding that they were liable to be convicted for their individual acts-Correctness of-Held, High Court committed a manifest error by invoking section 34 /PC after holding that they were liable for their individual acts-Prosecution has D failed to explain the injuries on the person of the accused; the delay in arresting the accused; and that the accused were aggressors with their common intention to cause death of the deceased-Possibility of exercising right of self defence cannot be ruled out-Hence, the accused are acquilted since the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable ~~ E Appellant No. I was running a brick-kiln in a land belonging to a village temple. On a complaint by villagers President of the Panchayat Board lodged a complaint with Block Development Officer who imposed a fine on the appellant. The President later convened a panchayat meeting for taking action against the appellant for non-accounting of the amount entrusted by the F villagers with him for temple festival. Appellant no. I along with his sons appellant nos. 2 and 3 attended the meeting. The meeting was attended by a large number of persons. At the meeting there was a wordy quarrel which resulted in a fight between the two groups. Appellant no. I stabbed the first deceased with a small knife which was brought by appellant no. 2 from a nearby G tea stall. Appellant no. I also assaulted on the head of the second deceased with a stick. Appellants and prosecution witnesses sustained injuries in the fight. Appellants and three others were charged by prosecution for offences under sections 147, 148, 324, 302 and 307 read with section 149 IPC. The trial court found the appellants guilty of all the offences. The High Court, 833 l-1 834 Sl'PREME CUlJRT REPORTS [200613 S.C.R. A however, acquitted the appellants of the charges against sections 324, 147, 148, and 302 read with section 149 IPC but held liable to be convicted for their individual acts and hence convicted them under section 302 read with section 34 I PC. In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the High Court B was wrong in invoking section 34 IPC after holding that they are liable for their individual acts; that the injured witnesses did not state as to how the appellants received stab injuries on their person; the First information report was lodged at the instance of the President of the Panchayat, who was not examined by the prosecution; that the allegations made against appellant no. C 3 are not supported by medical evidence; and that the plea of self-defence raised was not considered. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. The High Court committed a manifest error in invoking D Section 34 IPC. Once it was held that the appellants were liable to be convicted only for their individual acts, the question was required to be addressed different!)'. The High Court failed to consider the question that the prosecution E F has not been able to explain the injuries on the person of the appellants. The High Court also wrongly held that the burden of proof in respect thereof was on the appellants. 1843-BI 1.2. The High Court, after finding the injuries suffered by the accused on the vital parts of their bodies, without discussing the evidences brought on record held that the same were not sustained by them while exercising their right of self-defence. It is true that it is not for the prosecution to prove injuries on the person of the accused, in each and every case irrespective of the nature thereof, but in a case of this nature the same would require serious consideration as a plea of right of exercise of self-defence was raised. It is in that context that the apprehension of death or bodily injury in the mind of the accused persons would have to be determined having regard to the number of people assembled to take part in assaulting them, the manner in which they G wer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.