LexRAM AVTAR AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAM AVTAR AND ORS. A v. THE STATE OF U.P. NOVEMBER 20, 2002 [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860; Sections 224, 225, 302 r!w 149 and 307 r!w 149: Murder-Injuries to both parties-Right to private defence- Commencement of-Held, Testimony of eye-witnesses clearly shows that danger C to the life and liberty of accused did not exist-Under the circumstances, right to private defence not available to them. Injuries sustained by accused-Non-explanation thereof by the prosecution-Effect of-Held, since prosecution evidence clear, cogent and D credit-worthy, it could not be rejected solely on the ground of non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution. According to the prosecution, PWl, brother of the deceased, lodged an FIR that two constables of GRP came to the house of his deceased brother enquiring whereabouts of one of the accused-appellant in E connection with his arrest in some matter, These constables stayed with him and on the next morning they went along with PW!, his three brothers and others to a Chaupal where they found accused and held him. On raising alarm, relatives of accused came there equipped with weapons and assaulted the two constables and others resulting in the death of one of the brother of PW! on the spot and other at the hospital. Trial Court found F 8 accused persons guilty of committing offences under Sections 224, 225, 302 r/w 149 and Section 307 r/w Section 149 !PC and convicted and sentenced them accordingly. On appeal, High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, except the conviction and sentence under Sections 224 and 225 !PC. Hence these appeals by the convicted accused. G Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: I. On reappraisal of the testimony of eye-witnesses PWs. 1, 4, 7 & 8, High Court came to the finding that the accused party have exceeded the right of private defence because right of private defence will H 247 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A remain limited to the extent it could have been available against a private individual. Relying upon the evidence of PWI that one of the deceased was found lying dead outside a Baithak, High Court held that if prosec1;1tion witnesses had gone to the B~ithak where accused was present, the accused already came out and the danger to his life had ceased to exist. B It also appears from the testimony of PWs.1,4, 7 and 8 that the two constables had withdrawn themselves immediately of an assault on their person. This will clearly show that the so called danger to the life and liberty of accused had ceased to exist. [250-G, H; 251-A-B) 2. The complainant party received as many as 40 injuries including C the injuries sustained by the two deceased persons, whereas the accused party sustained only 7 injuries. The deceased also sustained injuries. With regard to the injuries sustained by one of the deceased, the prosecution evidence is that he was first assaulted by lathis and when he was running away he was fired upon by fire arms. The injuries sustained by the deceased were first medically examined by Medical Officer-PW2, who was D of the opinion that there were six lathi injuries and two gun shot injuries on the person of the deceased. And that the nature of the gun shot injuries shows that they could have probably been caused at the time when the deceased was running away. [250-D-F] E 3. The Jaw is well settled on the subject that where the prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and credit-worthy, mere fact that injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence and consequently the whole case. As noticed, in the instant case, the prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and credit-worthy and admits no ambiguity. [252-E, F) F G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 613 of 645 of 1994. From .the Judgment and Order dated 16.9.1993 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl. A. No. 2426, 2427and 2433 of 1979. Salman Khurshid, Imtiaz Ahmed, Ms. Naghma Ahmed, Yunus Malik and Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appellants. Arvind K. Shukla, Rasheed Saeed and Pramod Swarup for the H Respondent. • RAMAVTAR v. STATEOFU.P. [H.K. SEMA, J.] 249 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A SEMA, J, These appeals have been preferred by eight appellants, who had been convicted by the learned Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh which had been confirmed by the High Court. The High Court, while con
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.