LexSATYA NARAIN YADAV versus GAJANAND AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. ' ~- .. \ [2008] 11 S.C.R. 607 SATYA NARAIN YADAV v GAJANAND AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2001) AUGUST 1, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; Ss.96-106; S.302 r/w s.149/Evidence A B Act, 1872; s. 105: C Assault and murder- Exercise of right of private defence - Trial Court convicted accused for committing offence pun- ishable under s. 302 /PC and sentenced to life imprisonment - Reversed by High Court accepting the stand of accused that blows given by him were in exercise of right of private de- D fence - Correctness of - Held: Correct - No doubt, an ac- cused has profound right not to be convicted for an offence which is not established by evidential standard of proof be- yond reasonable doubt - Doubts are reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation - Law can not afford E any favourite other than truth - While protection given by crimi- nal process to accused not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimation of trivialities would make mockery of criminal justice - On facts, the High Court has rightly held that the accused, in exercise of right of private defence, inflicted F injuries on the deceased - Right of private defence - Exer- cise of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Ap- peal against acquittal - Ingredients - Discussed. Evidence: G -,. Acquittal - Presumption in favour of accused - Dis- ..J cussed. 607 H '· ~ 608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. --f ... A Power of appellate Court/High Court - Held: No restric- £. tion has been imposed by the legislature in dealing with ap- "':" peal against acquittal - High Court has full power to re-appre- ' ciate, review and re-consider the evidence at large and the material on which order of acquittal is founded to reach its B conclusion - Both questions of fact and of law are open to ~ determination by the High Court. According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, ·~ when PW-13-the informant along with his brother, the ~ deceased, was working in the field, accused-respondent p c No.1 and others attacked his brother on his head, as a .. "' result of which he got injured and later succumbed to the injuries. An FIR was lodged in the Police Station. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Police against the accused for committing the of- ) 0 fence punishable u/s.302 IPC. Trial Court found the ac- cused guilty of committing the murder of brother of the }.. ,. informant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous impris- onment for life. The High Court accepting the stand of the i> accused that he gave blows on the deceased in exercise E of right of private defence acquitted him. Hence the present appeals. .. Appellant-informant contended that the trial Court has erroneously held that the accused were exercising the right of private defence. F ~ Respondent No.1 submitted that when injury was caused by lathi not only on the accomplice of 'G' but also to 'G' - respondent, it cannot be said that they were not exercising the right of private defence. G Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 96 IPC does not define the expres- -( sion 'right of private defence'. It merely indicates that noth- ing is an offence which is done in the exercise of such right. • H Whether in a particular set of circumstances, a person legiti·· ) t SATYA NARAIN YADAV v. GAJANAND &ANR. 609 ~ mately acted in the exercise of the right of private defence is A .. a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circum- stances of each case. No test in the abstract for determin- ing such a question can be laid down. In determining this question of fact, the Court must consider all the surround- ing circumstances. (Para - 9) [917-G-H; 918-A-B] B 1.2 Under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof is on the accused, who sets up the plea of self-defence, and, in the absence of proof, it is ' not possible for the Court to presume the truth of the plea ,. 1 of self-defence. The Court shall presume the absence of c such circumstances. (Para - 9) [618-C-D] " 1.3 Where the right of private defence is pleaded, the defence must be a reasonable and probable version sat- isfying the Court that the harm caused by the accused D was necessary for either warding off the attack or for fore- stalling the further reasonable apprehension from the side .. ~ . of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.