LexPREETAM SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PREETAM SINGH AND ORS. A v. ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN NOVEMBER 4, 2003 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] B Penal Code: 1860-Sections 148, 302, 3071149, 326, 324, 3231149 and 300 Exception(4)-Charge for offences under-Prosecution-Death of one person caused by three accused and injury caused by others-Cross fight C between complainant and accused party-Aggression alleged on accused- Plea of self defence by accused-Inconsistency in version regarding spot of incident-Injuries on accused not mentioned in FIR-Testimony of injured eye-witnesses-Conviction by trial Court for the offences charged-High Court convicted u/s 302134 and acquittal from other charges-Plea of self defence rejected by both the Courts-On appeal. Held: Courts below rightly disbelieved D the. version of accused-Individual responsibility cannot be fvced on accused for various injuries causing death-Accused liable to be convicted u/s 304(Part I) r/w Section 34 as there is reasonable doubt regarding their common intention to kill the deceased-Exception (4) to Section 300 not applicable as it was not a case of sudden fight. Appellants-accused were charged for forming unlawful assembly, rioting, causing death of a person with deadly weapons, and causing grievous injuries to three members of complainant party. E Prosecution case was that when inform1rnt (PW2), his brother (PW6), F the deceased and his son (PWI) were sitting in the house of PW2, appellants-accused came there armed with deadly weapons and started abusing PWs2 and 6 for causing depletion of water in their tube well. Accused persons started fighting with them. When the deceased and PWI intervened, appellant Nos.2 and 3 who were armed .with swords and appellant No.I, who was armed with 'gandasi' attacked the deceased and G caused injuries on his head. PW-I was attacked by appellant No.4 and four other accused with 'gandasi' and 'lathis' .. Accused 'R' inflicted injuries on the arm of PW2. Thereafter the accused-appellants dragged the deceased upto the house of appellant No.2. On investigation, body of the deceased was found from the house of appellant No.2, and ammunition 135 H 136 SUPREME COURT l'.FPORTS (2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A was recovered from the person of the deceased. PW-I gave a different version of the incident that after the attack on the deceased, when he fell down on the 'chabutara' of house of PW-2, appellant Nos. I to 3 and accused 'R' tried to move the deceased to the house of appellant No.2, at that stage he and PW-6 brought out a 'lathi' and a 'sickle', and attacked. B the appellants to stop them, but did not succeed. c Accused-appellants had filed a counter-complaint that it was the complainant party who were aggressors and had come to the house of appellant No.2 to attack, and death of the deceased and injuries to PWs were caused by them in the course of self defence. Trial Court disbelieved the version of appellants and convicted appellant Nos.I, 2 and 3 under Sections 148, 302, 307/149, 326, 324 and 323/149 IPC. Appellant No.4 was held guilty for offences u/s 148, 302/149, 326, 324/149, 307 and 323/149 IPC and other accused were convicted u/ss 302/149, 307/149, etc. On appeal High Court disbelieved the version of D appellants and found appellants I to 3 guilty of murdering the deceased, and holding that Section 149 IPC was not attracted, convicted them u/s 302/34 IPC and acquitted them of other charges. Appellant No.4 was convicted u/s 326 IPC and acquitted of other charges and others were convicted u/ss. 322, 323 and 324 IPC and were acquitted of other charges. E In appeal to this Court appellants contended that even if it be assumed that they were responsible for initiating fight, their intention would not have been to cause harm to the deceased; that the present case at the most, could be of exceeding the right of self defence; and that deceased could not have participated in the fight unarmed as live F ammunition was recovered from him; that the case therefore, falls within Exception (4) to Section 300 IPC r/w its Explanation and hence appellants 1 to 3 were liable to be punished u/s 304 Part II. Disposing of the appeals, the Court G HELD : 1. Trial court as well as High Court have rightly disbelieved the story of the accused/appellants that in exercise of the right of self defence, they inflicted injuries on the deceased which led to his instantaneous death. Having rejected the version of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.