LexSAMPAT SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SAMPAT SINGH v: STATE OF RAJASTHAN January 7, 1969 (M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J. AND G. K. MITTER, J.j Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), s. 342-Non-confes- )"iouill stare111ent of accused how far 1nay be relied on for purpose of ..,"011- i'iction. The appellant was tried for murder under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code but was convicted only under s. 304 Part II of the Code. In hold- ;ng him so guilty the trial court and the High Court did not fully believe the prosecution version of the incident but accepted the appellant's ver- sion in part whereby he claimed the right of self-defence. They howe\·er held on the facts that he had exceeded the right of self-defence and con- victed him accordingly. In appeal before this Court it was contended that the accused's statement under s. 342 Criminal Procedure Code should -only be considered in itS entirety and a part of it cannot be used for the puroose of convicting him. Jn support of this contention reliance \\'as pJaCed on the decision of this Court in Narain Singh's case. HELD : Both the courts below on the facts were justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant exceeded his right of self-defence. Neither court had relied only on the. statement of the appeJlant under s. 342 Cr. P.C. to arrive at the finding. There was sufficient other evi- dence to warrant the conclusion that the right of private defence had been exceeded. Jn these circumstances the rule in Narain Singh's case namely that the conviction of an accused cannot be based on his statement alone where the statement does not amount to a confession, was not attracted. It is permissible for the court to rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of the other evidence against him led by the prosecution. [234 H-235 CJ Narain Singh v. Stat.e of Punjab. [1963) 3 S.C.R. 678, distinguished. /)lishi KGnt Jha v. State of Bihar, [1969) 2 S.C.R. 1033, followed and applied. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISnICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1967. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 27, 1967 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1964. B. R. Dhawan, B. P. Maurya, P. N. Tiwari, Santosh Gupta and Sobhag Mal Jain, for the appellant. K. Baldev Mehta, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court wai delivered, by Mitter, J, The main question inv01ved ill- . this appeal is, whether there was evidence to justify the finding that the appellant A B c D E F G H r • SAMPAT SINGH v. RAJASTHAN (Mitter, !.) 229• A had exceeded his right of private defence in giving two blows with a dagger to one Shyamsingh one of which proved fatal. B c .D E F G H The prosecution case was as follows. There was a long-. standing enmity between the families of Achalsingh on the one hand and Hariram and his sons on the other on account of the· fact that the admitted advance of Rs. 10,000/- by Hariram to Achalsingh some years back had not been repaid in spite of. numerous demands made from time to time. The houses of Hariram and Achalsingh were situated at a short distance from each other in the City of Jodhpur. Hariram had two sons, Rameshwar and Devilal. Rameshwar had been given in adoption to his uncle but the relationship between him and his brother, Devilal continued to be quite cordial. Rameshwar was married. to one Ratan Kanwar whose brother Sbyamsingh came to lose his life in the way to be narrated hereafter. Achalsingh had two• sons, Sampatsingh and Shyamlal. On March 28, 1963 at about 6 p.m. there was a quarrel between Devilal on the one hand and'. Asulal, Sampat Singh, Shyamlal and two friends of theirs, Kishensingh and Uttam Giri on the other. This group of people started abusing Devilal whereupon Rameshwar's wife, Ratan· Kanwar tried to intervene and stop the quarrel. The said group who were all accused in the Sessions Case which followed beat both Devilal and Ratan Kanwar. They also took away a golden· Jhumri from tbe right ear of Ratan Kanwar. Eventually people of the locality put an end to this affair. Ratan Kanwar sent messages to her husband Rameshwar and her brother Shyam- singh, deceased. Before Shyamsingh reached the place; all the accused came from the house of Achalsingh to that of Devilal and raised a shout asking the latter to come out. The accused· were armed variously, Sampat Singh with a dagger and the others with lathis. Rameshw
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.