P.D. PUSHPARAJAN versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 310 · Decided: 02-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
P.O. PUSHPARAJAN 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
DECEMBER 2, 1992 
[J.S. VERMA, YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND 
N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Coile 1860: Sections 302, 324 r/w 34 and 97-Murde,..-
Defmce by accused-Stealing by deceased and heated exchange of words and 
C use of Chopper by deceased-Not proved-Right of private defence rejected-
Finding of guilt and award of sentence-lnterf erelice with. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The two appellants along with two others were tried for the murder 
of one 'D' and were convicted by the Sessions Court for offences under 
Sections 302 and 324 IPC read1 with S.34 IPC and each of tkem was 
sentenced to undergo in;tprisonment for life. 
On Appeal, the High Court declined to interfere with the finding of 
guilt recorded by the Sessions Court as also with the sentence awarded. 
Being aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, two of the four 
convicts preferred the present appeals. 
It was contended that in view of the eye witness account that A-3 gave 
beatings with stick to the deceased, his conviction should have been altered 
to one under S.324 IPC and sentence imposed for having committed that 
offence only; and that the appellants had to stab and beat the deceased to 
save their own lives in exercise of their right to private defence as the 
deceased was found stealing plantain bunches and ginger from the land of 
A-2 and when confronted he tried to cut A-2 with a chopper in his hand: 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1. On consideration of the material on record it is found that 
there is no good reason which would warrant interference with the finding 
of guilt of the accused recorded by both the courts below. Consequently, 
sentence awarded to each of them does not call for interference. 
[315-H; 316-A] 
310 
A 
) 
i 
) 
•':a.. 
P.D. PUSHPARAJAN v. STATE 
311 
1.2. A.3 beating deceased with a stick is said to have taken place after A 
the deceased was stopped and stabbed by A-1 and A-2. By appreciating the 
said evidence relating to the role played by A-3 in the company of A-1, A-2 
and A-4 in bringing an end to the life of the deceased as given by P.W.1 
and the corroborating evidence as given by P.W.2 another eye-witness to 
the occurrence of the incident along with other evidence placed on record, 
both the courts below have rightly fo1:1nd A-1 to A-4 guilty of having 
committed the offences under section 302 and section 324 I.P.C. read with 
section 34 thereof, with which they were charged. (315-F, G] 
B 
1.3. The Sessions Court did not accept the statement that the 
deceased had cut two plantain bunches and kept them with him while he C 
had uprooted some ginger in the land of A-2. It did not also believe about 
the thieving by any body of plantain bunches and ginger from the land of 
A-2 where the incident had occurred, and it stated that if plantain bunches 
had been in fact cut and kept with the deceased the Investigating Officer 
who prepared the scene mahazar, would not have missed the same. The 
theory of private defence set up by A-4, as the reason for inflicting stab D 
injuries by A-1 and A-2 on the deceased was, therefore, discarded by it. 
The High Court also refused to accept the submission having regard to 
the scant material available on record. It was pointed out by the High 
Court that the evidence in the case showed that the ginger on the land 
being hardly of two months' crop was not ripe for harvest and there were E 
no plantains in the land which had yielded bunches, and therefore there 
was no question of deceased going to the place of occurrence of incident 
to commit theft. On the other hand, it was found from evidence on record 
that the deceased was caught by the accused in the land of A-2, when he 
was crossing the place to reach his sister who ·was standing along with her 
husband and crying out for him. Thus, the right of private defence said to 
have been exercised by the accused is rejected. (316-F-H; 317-A-D] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No.57 of 1988. 
F 
G 
From the .Judgment and Order dated 6.4.1984 of the Keral.a High 
Court in Cr!. A. No.103 of 1982. 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal No.248 of 1986. 
H 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
P.O. Sharma, (Amicus Curiae), P.N. Puri and Ms. Laxrni Arvind_ 
B 
(Amicus Curiae) (N.P.) for the Appellant. 
M.T. George-for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VENKATACHALA, J. Pushparajan, the appellant in Criminal Appeal 
No.57of1988 and Murali, the app

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