NASIRUDOIN KHAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 426 · Decided: 29-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 426 
A 
NASIRUDOIN KHAN AND ORS. 
'i· .,. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2001) 
s·~ 
JULY 29, 2008 
~ 
... · . 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
r 
SHARMA, JJ .. ] 
-
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 304 Part~//. and s. 323: 
c 
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder and assault 
- Accused attack deceased with weapons· and injured him -
Right of private defence - Exercise of- Trial Court found them 
guilty of committing offences punishable u/s. 304 Pt. I ands. 323 
/PC and sentenced them accordingly-Affirmed by High Court 
D - Correctness of - Held: Injuries suffered by accused simple 
and superficial in nature - Hence, High Court's judgment, so 
>--. 
far as accused appellant No.1 is concerned, affirmed - How-
ever, in case of other accused persons, benefit of s. 360 Cr PC. 
extended to them on executing the bonds of such amount as 
E to be fixed by trial Judge - Directions issued - Code of Crimi-
nal Procedure, 1973 - S.360 - First offender -
Releas~ on 
; 
probation of good conduct. 
-
· 
~ 
~ 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, 
there arose a quarrel between the accused persons and 
F 
the victim. Accused attacked the victim with weapons and 
injured him. When the villagers gathered, accused fled 
~ 
away. Injured was admitted to a hospital by the informant 
and, on the basis of his statement, complaint was lodged 
with the Police. Trial Court found accused persons guilty 
G of committing offences punishable u/s.304 Part-I and s.323 
IPC, convicted and sentenced them accordingly. Appeal 
filed thereagainst was dismissed by the High Court. 
..f-
Hence the present appeal. 
H 
426 
NASIRUDDIN KHAN & ORS. v. STATE 
427 
OFBIHAR 
-r 
Accused-appellants contended that they exercised A 
the right of private defence and, therefore, no offence was 
committed; that occurrence took place on 6.10.1981 and, 
. therefore;in case of appellant No.1 the sentence should 
be reduced to the period already undergone and in case 
of other two appellants the provisions of Section 360 of B 
, 
--( 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be applied. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
~-· 
HELD: The High Court noticed that the injuries on 
the accused persons were superficial in nature. After ana- c 
lyzing the evidence, the trial Court and the High ·court 
have found that there was no question of exercising the 
right of private defence. The trial C_ourt-and the High ,Court 
with reference to the evidence on record found that the 
so-called injury on 'N', one of the accused, has to be D 
viewed with suspicion. Although he claimed and alleged 
_..._ 
that he had sustained bhala injury, the injury report dis-
closes that the injury found on him by the Doctor indi-
cated that he had suffered injury by hard blunt substance 
and the injuries were simple. Therefore, the High Court's E 
judgment so far as the conviction and sentence of appel-
lant No.1 is concerned is affirmed. However, considering 
the long passage of time and the period of sentence im-
posed, it would be appropriate to extend to appellant Nos.2 
and 3 the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. on entering into 
bonds of such amount as may be fixed by the trial Judge. 
F 
~ 
(Para - 5) [429-F-H; 430-A-B] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal. 
No. 3 of 2001 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.2000 of the High 
G 
Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Appeal No. 216 of 1989 
-~ 
(S.J.) 
'l,;·· 
P.S. Mishra, Harshvardhan Thatagat, Shefali Jain, Sunita 
R. Singh and rajesh Prasad Singh for the Appellants. 
H 
428 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 
t 
..-
Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar and Vimla Sinha for the Re-
~ 
A 
• ' 
spondent.~ 
r
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
! 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to 
B :the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court 
I 
t 
:; 
uphold!ng the conviction of the· appellant No.1 for offence pun-
)' 
"' 
ishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 
(in short the 'IPC') and sentence of 5 years and the other two 
' 
appe_IJants who. were convicted for offence punishable under 
t 
c 
Section~3,23 I.PC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous im-
., 
prisonme~t fo_r pne year. 
L 
'{ 
.~ 
:;2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as fol-
·1ows: .-,.. ' 
· · 
· 
· 
r
Q 
As per the Fardbeyc;i.n of ,Murtaza Khan (Ext.3}, on 
6:·1.0, 1981. at about~ 1 .30 the informant was fixing pegs on his 
own sahan land to .keep r:

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