STATE OF GUJARAT versus BAI FATIMA & ANR

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 993 · Decided: 19-03-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

l I 
I ' ! 
• 
l-
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
II 
STATE Of GUJARAT 
v. 
llA I FATIMA & AN R. 
- March J 9, 1975 
[A A 
· 
· 
. 
b 
993 
. • 
• 
LAGlRISWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALlA~ JJ.] 
G\'tdencc-Apprecicuio!l of-Rig/a of prirare If, 
ll 
. 
. 
t ~ ei/CC-
OIV l!5lllbltJftctf. 
l<.cspon<.l~nts. Nos. 1 <mu ., were moth . 
d d 
h 
the brothl!r·in-law of respond;nt No 1 t nn 
·~
1£ ter. 
The 1.kceased \~<IS 
occurrence, the relations between th·· t' rr s·?·me 
uys before the t.lat~ of the 
th·e· ~l<_tY of th~ occurrence there wasc.: a ~~ufll~
1
~~~-;~~r~h~o~~ ~~~d~~{~'i~d ~n 
~lcc~,1s~d. A ltttlc ~ater, \\lhcn the dccca5ed was sining in the bcfusc of hi$ father: 
tn-luw Jn the Ojlp~~Jtc ro~ of hou~es. rc:sponucnt No. J W<IIS alle~d to have g 
t~ the dcc~a~cd wtth a stick 1~ beat him. 
Some nci:;:hboun intervened ~nn~ 
tncd lo P•ICtfy both the parttcs. 
When the d~:~easc!.l was going out responde t 
No. 1 l'Ut t~c:r leg across the kJ:,'S of the dec~a.scd, a~ a result of ":hich he fell 
down on hts b;1ck. 
Respondent No. 2 immcdi~tely caught hold of both the 
lwnds of the dcccnsed anr.J rcsronJent No. 1 :.S ~llltcd to h;~ve squeezed his testicles 
~n~ pulled them. Eventually thl! decca.'>ed ~uccumbc:d to the injury. 
After the 
utctJent rcspon~ent No •. l lodgcll ? complaint before the police st:~ting that the 
c.leceascd, hts wafe anti Ills mothcr-m·htw caught holu of hc:r nnd save her blows 
m•d kids with a stkk as n result of \"hkh r.he fell down.. 
Hulding that the. prosecution Ca'ic wa-; proved beyond reasonable <.lvubt the 
Se~.,ions Jud~c.: com·h;tcd respondent No. l under s. JO.S. Part-!, J.P.C. .Re;pon-
J~nt No. 2 w:ts com·ktcd unth:r s. 3.23 rc.:ad with s. 144. LP.C. On appeal, the 
Hi~n Court, even uftcr believing the main part o( the occurrence, acquitted res-
pondent No. 1 of the charges levelled against her nnd consequently respondent 
r-io. ::! ul\u on the g•ouod thi.lt she must have done so in e:tercise of her right of 
private: tlcfcm;c inasmuch as she nmo;t ha\'e squee:£ed the testicles of the dc-
..:c=a~d when he ww• !lho\\..:ring blo\\s \\ith a ~tick on her in order to protect 
hcr-xdf. 
Allov.ing the aprcal of the St<tt~. 
HELD ; (I) The trial court \\-U.S ri,g~t !n belie~ing th¢ evidence '!r the P!O-
';:cution \lt· itncs~c-; in regard to both the tnCIUI!I_lts and the occurrence m ques1.10n 
formine; purl of the second inciJent. .The H1gh Court dilfered from the Vli!W 
of the trial judge: on 11inl"Y &.~nd umuslamab_le grounJs. l998 D-E) 
(2J iherc . was ab,olutdy no basi~ ~r m:1h:rbl on the rec~rd to .enable, the 
J ligh Court to rcconl un '!rJcr of ncqlllllat m f~,-.~ur of the res~onJcnts b~ e..~· 
tending them a right of pm.-Le defence. 
E\~n gmng to lhe ma.xu~~um c.·d~n~ m 
fuvour of the rcspunJI!nl'i that r~-;ponucnt No. ~ ~ot th~ b!ows '\ !th n st•ck at 
tl e huml'i of the dci.."C>ts~J nml i':' the second 11\Ctdcnt 1t lS m~u~•Cest tha.t .her 
, ~r 1 o( u~ault on him \\-aS n d~hbcrate counter-attack to cause htm such ~nJury 
ul !~h . t ! •a ·t was ltkely to ~.:au~c his death. 'fhe countcr·attack co~ld m Dll· , 
~~~ 0~ u~ ~~tl&~d. in e,,crd~ of the right of pnvate ddcnce. (1000 f-G] 
·. 
N · 1 . · 
h~r com1,Iainl bcf0rc the polkc nor in the stat~ment under 
I 3) 
ctt It: r an 
. 
, 
1 N 
1 of her ha\'tnS squeezed 
3 ,.., (' 
p (.' w·t, there a wh1..,pcr by re:-;punvclt 
o. 
. 
. 
!f. 
.. .. , . r. 
' • ' · .. 
. rt · of thi! u~c~cu in e.xen;i~e of her nght Of prt\'<!IC 
111~ tc'lln:lc!) auJ pma.te ~~ \:a of privatt ddcn-.:c n~lt tulcn by the re.~pon~e~ts 
d~fcncc. Nol only "~ 1 t 
P3 .. p Cr p c but no basis for the plea was l:uu 1R 
in their titulcm~nls. un er 5• 
~sC~:~lli~n· \\itu~--s or by nl.lducins ~ny defence · 
the cru!>s·cxatmnatao~ of r'h\ft,li~h ing that pl"a \\'aS not l.lisl!h:\rgeJ m ~~~ w~y 
evidence. Th" bunh:t~ o ~ iying the tc-;t ot prrronderunce of probabtlltJed m 
h)' the I'C~!!pOI'l\lenl~ C:\~~~h~~pis -~bsolutd)' no matcri<tl on the record to ea to 
ru\'OUr of th ~~t ~.lea. [91J~ G·Hl 
'I w.:h. cundu~ton. 
c R 4 < 
J 
u n ) 
1 0 1 , " v D,·lhi ..!11 mit•i ~~ rc~1io11 [ 19681 2 S. · · 
• ;:~ • 
A!llllltl Uum CUll 
I u r. 
, 
. 
followed. 
J7-LS64SC1J73 
....... ,. 
. .. . 
. ,-·-:-r---"'·~ 
......... ~~· -
· 
.. 
~ .. 
. , . - .. , ·._ 
i 
I I 
I 
I I 
' . 
\ · 
• I 
I ; 
\ 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1~75] 3 S.C.R. 
CRIMINAL APPELL,\TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 
1971. 
Appeal by sp~cial leave from the Judgment & Order dated the 17th 
July, 1970 of the Gujarat High Court in Crl. A. Nos

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.