LexPATHUBHA GOVINDJI RATHOD & ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 491 PATHUBHA GOVINDJI RATHOD & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 2282 of 2014) JANUARY 21, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part-I) rlw s. 149 - Fight between two groups - Cross-complaints - Resulting in conviction of the accused in both the cases [including the C conviction of appellant No. 1 u/s 3021149 and of appellant No. 2 u/s 304(part /)] - Appellants taking plea of private defence - Held: The present was a case of free fight - Normally right of private defence is not available in such cases - But in view of the fact that appellant No. 1, having suffered knife injury D exceeded his right to private defence, his case would be covered under Exception 2 of s. 300 /PC - Thus conviction of appellant No. 1 altered to one uls 304 (Part-I) rlw s. 149 - Sentence reduced to 1 O years RI from life imprisonment - Conviction and sentence of appellant No. 2 is affirmed. E Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In the present case, there are cross- versions of the incident, and cross-complaints were lodged with the police. Both the cases resulted in F conviction. Considering the number of persons involved in the incident, it can be safely said that it is a case of free fight between two groups of people. In the cases of free fights, accused are to be fastened with individual liability taking into consideration the specific role assigned to G each one of them, and normally right of private defence is not available in such cases unless circumstances in a given case warrant so. But that is not a rule without exception. [para 13 and16] [500-H; 501-B-C; 502-E] 491 H 492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and evidence on record, it is evident that accused/appellant No.1 who suffered knife injury in the incident has caused death of one of the deceased by firing several shots thereby exceeding right of private s defence. A person faced with injury with a deadly weapon to his life, cannot be expected to weigh in balance the precise force needed to avoid danger. [para 14 and 16] [501-D; 502-G-H] Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P. 2008 (9) SCR 1 = 2008 C (16) SCC 657, this Court, in State of Rajasthan v. Manoj Kumar 2014 (5) SCC 744; Mohd. Khalil Chisti v. State of Rajasthan 2012 (13) SCR 777 = 2013 (2) SCC 541 - relied on. o 3. Thus, it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder covered under Exception 2 of Section 300 of IPC.The conviction and sentence recorded against accused/appellant No.1 under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 149 IPC is altered to one u/s 304 (Part- E I) IPC and he is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of ten years. The conviction and sentence recorded against accused/appellant no. 2 u/s 304(Part I) read with Section 149 IPC, does not require any interference. [para 17] [503-8-E] F G Case Law Reference: 2008 (9) SCR 1 2014 (5) sec 744 relied on relied on para 14 para 14 2012 (13) SCR 777 relied on para 15 CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2282 of 2014. From the Judgment & Order dated 30.06.2014 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1391 H of 2007. PATHUBHA GOVINDJI RATHOD v. STATE OF 493 GUJARAT Meenakshi Arora, Tulika Prakash, Sheeba Khan,Vasav A Anantharaman for the Appellants. Jesal, Hemantika Wahi, Preeti Bhardwaj, Puja Singh for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 30.6.2014 passed by High Court of Gujarat whereby the said Court has partly allowed the criminal appeals arisen out of Sessions Case No. 85 of 2003 c and the cross Sessions Case No. 53 of 2004, which were decided by two separate orders of the same date, i.e., 5.10.2007 by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Junagarh. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. D _3, Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Satish Jotva (PW-42) used to live with his family in Village Arena. On 2.9.2003 his uncle Bhurabhai Jivabhai (PW-46) was going to E his field on a bicycle. At about 10.30 a.m., he was intercepted by Pathubha Govindji Rathod (appellant no. 1) near bus stand. Accmed/appellant no.1 picked up a quarrel with Bhurabha Jivabhai as to why he supported Natha Nagabhai (one of the deceased) in Gra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.