STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus MEHRAM & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 234 · Decided: 06-05-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
MEHRAM & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1894 of 2010)
MAY 06,  2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – Conversion of conviction from s.302 IPC
to s.326 IPC – The complainant’s case that they used an old way
passing through the fields of accused persons to go to their field
– There was a dispute between the parties for using the fields as
a passage – On the day of incident, the accused persons armed
with ‘Kassies’ and lathies come out from the back of the bushes
and surrounded the complainant when he was passing through
fields – The accused tried to strike the complainant, however, the
victim and other persons arrived from their fields – Thereafter, the
accused No. 5/respondent no. 1 struck a ‘kassi’ blow on the head
of the victim, due which he fell and later on died – There were
beatings from both sides and after the intervention of other
villagers, the accused persons ran away – The case was committed
by the Sessions Court and the accused no. 5/respondent no. 1 came
to be convicted u/ss. 148, 302, 324/149 IPC and sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment – All the five accused including accused
no. 5 preferred appeal before the High Court – As regards, accused
no. 5/respondent no. 1, the High Court converted the conviction
u/s. 302 IPC into one under s. 326 IPC on the finding that the said
accused had exceeded his right of private defence – On appeal,
held: On perusal of the relevant evidence and the judgments of
the Trial Court and the High Court, there is no reason to depart
from the conclusion reached by the Trial Court that there were
tangible circumstances and evidence to indicate that the accused
party was the aggressor, who was hiding in the bushes and appeared
only after the complainant party arrived on the spot – The accused
party armed with lethal weapons assaulted the complainant party
– The blows inflicted by the concerned accused, in particular
accused No. 5, here with intention to kill the victim/deceased – The
High Court proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the
accused party were provoked due to the unauthorized entry of the
   [2020] 5 S.C.R. 234
234
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
235
complainant party on their fields and to defend their possession,
they had to resort to right of private defence – In the instant case,
there was no evidence produced to substantiate the plea of exercise
of private defence – The incident in question occurred due to
provocation and spiralled into a free fight – Further, once it is a
case of accused party being the aggressors and they commenced
assault on the complainant party and the accused No. 5/respondent
No. 1 having been found to have assaulted victim/deceased with
intention to kill him the question of invoking the right of private
defence does not arise – Insofar the conviction of the accused
no.5/respondent no.1 is concerned, the sequence of events would
indicate that provocation was not invited by the accused party, but
was obviously at the instance of the complainant party, who entered
the fields unauthorisedly despite the objection taken by the
complainant party in that regard on the same day earlier – The
death of the victim was caused by the one fatal blow on the head,
which was with the intention of causing his death or causing such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, therefore, the case would
be covered by s. 304-I, IPC – Accordingly, the impugned judgment
of the High Court and that of the Trial Court are modified by
convicting the accused no. 5/respondent no. 1 for offence
punishable u/s. 304-I and s. 148 IPC.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. After having gone through the relevant evidence
and judgments of the trial  Court and the appeal Court (High
Court), this Court has no reason to depart from the conclusion
reached by the trial Court that there were tangible
circumstances and evidence to indicate that the accused party
was the aggressor, who was hiding in the bushes and appeared
only after the complainant party arrived on the spot. The accused
party had assembled at the spot with lethal weapon(s) and all
the accused were waiting for the complainant party to arrive at
the spot and started assaulting the complainant party. The blows
inflicted by the concerned accused, in particular accused No. 5,
were with an intention to kill victim (deceased). The death of
victim was caused due to the blow  inflicted by accused No. 5
and was a homicidal death.

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