RAJ PAL AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 74 · Decided: 19-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAJ PAL AND ORS. 
11. 
THESTATEOFHARYANA 
APRIL 19, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 34, 97, 299, 300, 304, 323 and 325-
Dispute over proper~Accused dealt lathi blows to deceased and others--
C Plea of right of private defence raised by the accused on basis of injuries 
sustained by them-Trial Court rejected the plea, convicted the accused 
under section 304 Part I /PC and sentenced them to ten years rigorous 
imprisonment-High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded 
by the trial court---Correctness of-Held, exercise of right of private defence 
to the extent of causing death cannot be presumed on the basis of injuries 
D on the accused--Dn facts, no evidence was adduced that the accused were 
under grave apprehension about the safety of their life and property~-Hence, 
plea of right of private defence is rejected-On the basis of the whole evidence, 
accused are convicted under section 304 Part II !PC and sentenced to seven 
years rigorous imprisonment. 
E 
F 
Deceased was repairing an iron gate of his house with the help of PW 
6. Appellants and one other person, armed with lathis, desisted the deceased 
and PW 6 from repairing the gate, asserting that they had also a share in the 
property. The deceased told them that they had no right over the property as 
he had got it in a partition. The appellants abused the deceased and gave lathi 
blows on the body of the deceased. PW 6 and PW 7 also received lathi blows 
from the appellants. The deceased died next day in a hospital. 
The appellants contended before trial court that the deceased, with help 
of some prosecution witnesses, was raising construction on disputed plot 
G claiming his share in the plot; that when they objected, the deceased assaulted 
the appellants; and that they had acted in self defence of person and property. 
The Trial Court, on consideration of evidence on record, held that the 
appellants had no intention to commit murder since they did not repeat blows 
on the head of the deceased. The Trial Court convicted the appellants for 
H offence punishable under section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC and 
74 
.. 
.. 
· RAJPALv. THESTATEOFHARYANA 
75 
they.were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor ten years and a· A 
fine of Rs. 2000/-. The appellants were also convicted for offences punishable 
under section 325 and 323 read with section 34 IPC and were sentenced to 
undergcr rigorous.imprisonnient for 2 years and six inonths respectively and 
a fine of RS.'500/- Appeal before High Court by the appellants was dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that th.e Trial Court · B 
and High Court did not take note.of the fact that the appellants had suffered 
serious injuries in the incident in exercise of the right of private defence; 
and that when the trial court held that the appellants had no intention to cause 
homicidal death, it should not have convicted them under section 304 Part I 
WC 
C 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for. 
derterming who t,he aggressor was. It cannot be stated as a universal rule 
that whenever the injuries are on the body of the accused persons, a D 
presumption must necessarily be raised that the accused persons had caused 
injuries in exercise of the right of private defence. The defence has to further 
establish that the injuries so caused on the accused probabilies the version 
of the right of private defence. Non-explanation of the injuries sustained by 
the accused at about the time of occurrence or in the course of altercation is · 
a very important circumstance. But mere non-explanation of the injuries by 
the prosecution niay not affect the prosecution case in all cases. This principle 
applies to cases where the injuries sustained by the acc~sed are minor and 
superficial or wh·ere the evidence is so clear and cogent; so independent and 
disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs 
E 
the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. F · 
179-B, C, DJ 
1.2. A plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and 
speculation. While considering whether the right of private defence is available 
to an accused, it is not relevant whether he may have a chance to inflict severe 
and mortal injury on the aggressor. In order to find whether the right of private G 
defence is availa

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