RAJPAL AND ANR versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 757 · Decided: 27-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAJ PAL AND ANR 
A 
v. 
STATEOFHARYANA 
APRIL 27, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
i 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 34 & 302/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; 
_... 
s. 313: 
Murder-Right to private defence-Held: Accused allegedly gave a c 
lathi blow and a pharsi blow on the head of the deceased-A pharsis causes 
an incised wound, however, no incised wound found on the body of the 
deceased as is evident from the post mortem report-Thus, there is a clear 
inconsistency between ocular version and medical version-Accused admitting 
that they did attack the deceased but they did so in their self-defence- D 
Prosecution failed to explain the injury on the accused -Non-explanation 
of injuries is certainly an important circumstance which has to be taken into 
consideration by the Court while deciding that benefit of doubt should go 
to the accused-Statement of accused as recorded under Section 313 as used 
in self-defence certainly throws reasonable doubt upon the entire prosecution 
version-Hence, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused- E 
Directions issued 
According to the prosecution, on 5.8.1990, the complainant, PW 10 and 
another were smoking "huqqa", in front of the baithak of one 'S'. In the 
• 
1 
afternoon, when the deceased was returning in his house after grazing F 
buffaloes and reached in front of 'P's house, accused persons armed with 
pharsi and lathi respectively threatened him with dire consequences for 
suspecting them as the thieves of bu ff aloes. One of them gave a pharsi blow 
and another gave a lathi blow on the head of the deceased, and he fell on the 
ground. But the accused continuously gave 2-3 more lathi blows which hit 
him on his back. Seeing this, PW 9, PW 10 and another person reached the G 
spot and rescued the victim from the clutches of accused. In the rescuing 
process, one of the accused also received injuries. The accused thereafter 
fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. The victim was taken 
to a Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. On receipt of the 
757 
H 
758 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A information, a Sub-Inspector of Police reached the hospital and sent the dead-
body of the victim for post-mortem examination. A case against the appellants 
was registered vide formal FIR. Later, accused were arrested, and in 
pursuance of disclosu_re statement, weapons used in committing the crime 
were recovered. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet against the 
accused persons was filed by the Police. Trial Court found both the accused 
B guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C and sentenced 
them to life imprisonment. Appeal filed against the judgment of the trial Court 
was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the accused-appellant, it was contended that admittedly one 
C of the accused caused the injury on the back of the deceased with a jelly and 
another accused was not present; that the injuries on the person of the deceased 
was a self-defence; that the report of the local commissioner clearly reveals 
'-fnat it was not possible for the eye witnesses to have seen the occurrence 
while sitting at the place as mentioned as the place of occurrence; that there 
is a clear contradiction between the eye witnesses and the medical evidence; 
D that the delay in lodging the FIR also shows that it is a concocted false story; 
that the injuries on the person of the accused are totally unexplained by the 
prosecution and they are in conformity with the defence version; that the 
motive attributed to the accused was stale and the theft of buffalo of deceased 
and another was only the suspicion which had taken place a long time back 
E and was no reason to commit a serious crime as murder; and that the FIR is 
the result of consultation and deliberation as the special report was received 
by the Magistrate at 6.55 p.m. even though his residence is only 100 yards 
from the police station. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In this case the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused 
and it is possible that it is a case of bona fide self-defence. (Para 18) (764-F] 
1.2. In the FIR, it has been stated that one of the accused gave a pharsi 
l>low on the head of the deceased while another accused gave a lathi blow on 
G his head. The same is the statements in Court of the alleged eye witnesses 
PW 9 and PW IO. A pharsi is a weapon which causes an incised wound

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