LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus MANOJ KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 589
·•
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
MANOJ KUMAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 885 of.2007)
APRIL 11, 2014
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
A
· Penal Code, 1860..: s.304 Part I - Murder - Verbal
altercation over ownership and possession of property led to
,
the incident - Death caused due to gunshot injury - Three C
accused - Accused 'R' had fired the gunshot - All accused
convicted by trial court uls.302 rlw s.34- High Court accepted
plea relating to right of private defence but held that 'R' had
exceeded the right of private defence, and converted his
conviction uls.302 to one u/s.304 Part-I - Justification - Held: D
In the case at hand, the plea ofright of private defence arose
. on the base of materials on record - As far as onus was
concerned, there was ocular and documentary evidence to
sustain the concept of preponderance of probability - There
were altercations between the accused and the deceased and E
there was threat that the informant and others would take over
possession - There was threat to the property of 'R' and he
made effort to drive away the informant and others - Act of
the accused to be adjudged regard being had to the
surrounding circumstances and not by way of microscopic F
pedantic scrutiny - Though 'R' fired gunshot but it was really
not with the intention to cause the death of the deceased -
Prosecution did not bring any material on record that 'R was
· vindictive, or he had any malicio_us intention to cause the
death - That being the position, #he High Court rightly held G:
that 'R' had exceeded the right of private defence and correctly
found him guilty u/s. 304 Part I - Evidence Act, 1872 -s. 105
- Arms Act - ss. 25127.
589
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 8 S.C.R.
A
Penal Code, 1860- s.34 - Murder- Common intention
- Incident occurred pursuant to altercation over ownership and
possession of property - Death caused due to gunshot injury
- Three accused - Accused 'R' had fired the gunshot - All
accused convicted by trial court u/s.302 rlw s.34- High Court
B conve.ted conviction of 'R' to one u/s.304 Part-I - In regard
to the other two accused, the High Court held· that their
conviction could not be sustained in aid of s.34, /PC, and
acquitted them of all charges - Justifiability - Held: It is a
case where right of private defence had only been exceeded
C by 'R' - The other two accused had accompanied 'R' to defend
the right of possession - In such a case, the guilt of each of
.the accused, who had exceeded the right of private defence,
to be dealt with separately - The matter would have been
totally difi'erent, had the right of private defence did not exist
at all or the accused persons had done any overt act -
D Constructive liability, as envisaged u/s.34 /PC, not attracted
- Conclusion of High Court that s. 34 /PC could not be
attracted regard being had to the factual score, correct.
The prosecution case was that dispute over
E ownership and possession of a plot of land led to verbal
interaction between the parties, and eventually accused
'R' fired gunshot which led to t'1e c!eath of 'A'. There were
two other accused - 'H' and 'M'. The trial court convicted
'R' under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and also
F
under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, while 'H' and 'M'
were convicted under Section 302/34, IPC.
In appeal, the High Court accepted the stand of all
the accused persons relating to right of private defence.
However, in case of 'R', the High Court held that he had
G exceeded-the right of private defence, and accordingly
converted his conviction under Section 302 IPC to one
under Section 304 Part-I IPC; and further confirmed his
conviction under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. As
far as 'H' and 'M' were concerned, the High Court held
H
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. MANOJ KUMAR
591
that their conviction could not be sustained in aid of A
Section 34, IPC, for in the obtaining facts and
circumstances Section 34 IPC was not applicable. 'H' and
'M' were acquitted of all charges.
In the instant appeals filed by the State, two
questions arose for consideration: {i) whether the High
B
Court was justified in accepting the contention of right
of private defence; and (ii) whether the conclusion of the
High Court that Section 34 IPC could not be attracted
regard being had to ·the factual score, was correct.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. As noticed from the evidence on record,
there cExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.