LexSAT NARAIN versus STATE OF HARYANA TH. MINISTRY OF HOME
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 1 S.C.R. 243 ·~ SAT NARAIN A v: STATE OF HARYANA TH. MINISTRY OF HOME (Crl. A. No. 38 of 2008) JANUARY 8, 2008 B [C.K. THAKKER AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 and 307 - Conviction under - Dispute between complainant party and accused leading to fatal shot to one c -< and injuries to others - Conviction by courts below-Accused taking plea of self defence - On appeal, held: Courts below rightly believed the injured witnesses as also other prosecution witnesses - Complainant party were unarmed and were not i aggressors- Moreso, accused re-loaded the gun which proves D his intention to kill the complainant side - Thus, accused could -t- not have claimed the benefit of private defence-A/so, acquittal of others extending them benefit of doubt would not make conviction and finding recorded against accused vulnerable - Hence, order of conviction upheld. E ss 96-99 - Right of private defence - Availability of - Burden of proof - Held: Right of private defence is available provided there is reasonable apprehension to life or grievous hurt to such person even jn absence of physical injury - Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - F But when accused takes a defence, he has to prove it on basis of reasonable probability - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 105. According to the prosecution case, there was a dispute between OS, brother-in-law of the complainant G and the appellant, brother of OS. The complainant party was supporting OS-PW 12. On the fateful day, when the unarmed members of the complainant party were going to their village in a jeep, the accused prevented them from proceeding towards the village by putting a car in the way 243 H 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 1 S.C.R. A by causing obstruction. The accused party attacked the complainant party. The appellant fired a shot at CR from his licensed gun with intention to kill him. The second shot was fired at the complainant- PW 14 but he escaped it by taking shelter behind the jeep and the third shot was fired B at the wife of CR-PW 15. Other accused also caused · injuries to the complainant party. The complainant party raised an alarm. OS and others came to the place of incident and accused fled away. CR, PWs-14 and 15 were taken to the hospital, however, CR succumbed to his C injuries. Investigations were carried out. Prosecution examined PWs 14, 15, 12 and 13. The appellant admitted his presence at the place of incident but alleged that he fired shots in his defence which hit CR. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant under sections 0 302, 307, 323 and 324 r/w s. 34 IPC. Other accused were also convicted. The State and complainant filed revision petitions which were dismissed. The· appellant and the accused filed appeals. High Court acquitted some accused giving them benefit of doubt. However, it upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under E sections 302 and 307 IPC. Hence, the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. With regard to the appellant, no case has been made out for interference by this Court against the F order passed by the trial Cpurt and confirmed by the High Court. Both the Courts believed the story of the prosecution, particularly evidence of PW14-complainant, real brother of the deceased and injured as also PW15, wife of deceased CR, another injured eye-witness. The G Courts rightly held that the appellant fired three times. The resultant effect was loss of life of CR and injuries to wife of CR. The appellant also tried to hit the complainant but he escaped himself by taking shelter of his vehicle-jeep and thus, avoided injury by a fire arm. From the evidence, H it is also clearly established and believed by the Courts +- • SAT NARAIN v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. 245 . MINISTRY OF HOME > --f that the appellant had re-loaded his gun which proves his A intention to kill CR and attempt to kill other members of the. con:iplainant party. [Para 14) [253-E, F, G; 254-A] 1.2 A right of private defence cannot be weighed in a 'golden scale' and even in absence of physical injury, in a 8' given case," such right may be upheld by the Court provided there is reasonable apprehension to life or grievous hurt to such person. The onus of proof on the . - ~ accused as to exercise of right of private defence is not as heavy as on the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused and it is sufficient for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.