LexSONE LAL & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D F G 352 SONE LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. April 3, 1981 [ S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, BAHARUL ISLAM AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ. ] . Indian Penal Code 1860, Ss. 302, 307, 323 read with S. 149-Enmity between parties of the accused and deceased-Altercation and assault-Accused receiving injuries-Accused whether aggressors-Whether entitled to right of private defence. The prosecution alleged that there was a long standing enmity between the parties of the deceased and the appellants. There was a vacant plot of land in front of the flour mill and residence of PW. 1. The appellants started throwing rubbish on this piece of land. PW.I and his son, the deceased, objected to this. On the fateful day at about noon there was an altercation in connection with the throwing of rubbish, and at about 8 p.m. one of the appellants armed with a lathi went to the flour mill and challenged PW. 1 and his companions. At the call of this appellant, the other appellants who were armed with gun, pistol, Jathi and spear arrived at the spot. PW. 1 managed to snatch the spear from the hands of one of the appellants and started giving blows to the assailants in order to defend himself. At that time two of the appellants fired their gun and pistol as a result of which the son of PW. 1 received injuries, to which he succum- bed while being removed to the Police Station. The defence of the appellants was one of alibi and that the offence had not taken place on the land of PW. I. The appellants were tried before the Sessions Judge who convicted and ~f sentenced them under Sections 302, 307 and 323 read with Section 149 of the -,. Penal Code. The High Court dismissed the appeal. It agreed with the ttial Court and found that the prosecution case was established by the evidence of the prosecu- tion witnesses and that the defence version of the case had to be rejected on account of the inconsistent pleas made by the appellants before the committing court and the Sessions Court. In the appeal in this Court, it was contended that there was no finding by H the trial and appellate courts as to how the assault initially started and which party was the aggressor, that the prosecution had not explained .as to how the y ----- - I • SONELAL v. U. P. STATE (Baharu/ Islam, J.) 353 appellants received the injuries, and that the appellants had the right of private A defence and, therefore, they had committed no offence. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : l. The High Court rightly accepted the prosecution case as true and held that the defence case was false. (356 F] 2. The findings of the two courts below indicate that it was the appellants who were the aggressors and that the occurrence took place on the land lying in front of the house of PW. I who was in possession thereof and that the deceased and PW. I had the right of private defence of property and person and that they exercised that right. The appellants who were the aggressors, even if they received injuries from the victims of their aggression, cannot have any right of private defence. The findings are that the deceased and PW. 1 were unarmed and that P.W. I snatched the weapon from one of the assailants and caused injuries to them. If the decesed and the other prosecution witnesses had been the aggressors, PW. l would not have come without his licensed gun. [356 H-357A, 356 E] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1974. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 9th January, 1974 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 356/77 connected with Criminal Appeal No. 723 of 1970. R. K. Garg, S. S. Bhatnagar, V. J. Fra11cis <ind Sunil Kumar Jain for the Appellants . R. K. Bhat for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BAHARUL ISLAM, J. This appeal by special leave has been directed against the judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court dismissing two appeals filed by the appellants before it. The appellants were convicted under Sections 302, 307 and 323 all read with Section 149 of the Penal Code. They were sentenced to imprisonment for life, . each, under Section 302/ 149, rigorous im- prisonment for 7 years, each, under Section 307/149 and rigorous imprisonment for six months, each, under Section 323/149 of the Penal Code. Appellants Harish Chandra and Nathu were further convicted under Section 148 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.