LexUDAYKUMAR PANDHARINATH JADHAV @ MUNNA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 189 " UDAYKUMAR PANDHARINATH JADHAV @ MUNNA A V. 1 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (.Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2006) ., APRIL 29, 2008 B [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Penal code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part I) - Murder - Two eye- witnesses - One of the eye-witnesses stating that deceased first attacked the accused - Accused taking the plea of private c defence - Courts below convicting the accused uls 302 - On appeal, held: Plea of private defence is available to the accused - However, he exceeded the right of private defence - Hence conviction altered to one uls 304 (Part I). Appellant-accused was prosecuted uls 302 IPC for D causing death of a person. The incident was seen by two eye-witnesses. One of the eye-witnesses-<Ui his cross- examination stated that the deceased had first attacked the accused with a knife. Accused also took the defence that he caused the injuries to the deceased in exercise of E his private defence. Trial Court as well as High Court ' convicted the accused. Hence the present appeal. • Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The case against the accused is proved F by the evidence of the eye-witnesses whose presence cannot be doubted and in addition, the fact that the accused had caused the injuries, has also been admitted though he has pleaded the right of private defence. [Para 2] [191-F, G] G ., 1.2 The plea of private defence is available to the appellant though it has not been specifically raised by him. PW-4 an eye-witness, in his cross-examination stated that the deceased had attacked the accused with knife. 189 H 190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 7 S.C.R. A The Public Prosecutor did not challenge the correctness thereof in any manner. Thus the prosecution itself has accepted this statement as being true. It is well settled r;; that in order to make out a case of private defence, the accused need not plead it in specific terms but if the F B circumstances justify an inference with regard to such a " right, the Court must examine that possibility as well. [Para 4] [192-D, E] 1.3 From the evidence it is clear that the deceased was not only a karate expert but also armed with a knife c and the appellant apprehended injury at his hands. At the best that can be said for the prosecution is that the appellant had exceeded the right of private defence. Therefore the appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 302 IPC and his conviction is modified to one D under Section 304 (1) IPC in the background that the fatal injury caused on the chest had penetrated deep into the body. [Para 4] [192-G; 193-A] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal ,_ E No.255/2006. From the final Judgment and Order dated 1.8.2005 of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in "· Criminal A. No. 130of1999. • A. Kanade and Aribam Gunseshwar Sharma for the F Appellant. Chinmoy Khaladkar and Ravindra Keshavrao for the Respondent. • The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the following facts: 2. On 22.10.1997, at about 5 or 5.30 p.m., PW1 Rajesh, the first informant along with Santosh Supekar and Shivraj, H deceased were standing and talking outside the house of UDAYKUMAR PANDHARINATH JADHAV@ MUNNA v. 191 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.] Santosh Supekar. While they were so involved, the appellant, A Udaikumar, who was known to Rajesh, accompanied by an unknown person came there and holding Rajesh took him to the side saying that he had been summoned by one Ram Hallele. • While going away Rajesh turned around in time to see that ~- Shivraj was being stabbed by the appellant and while the victim B was successful in warding off the first blow, the other blows stuck home. Rajesh thereupon rushed towards the house of one Babar Saheb and narrated the incident to him and information was conveyed by Babar Saheb to the police. The police reached the place shortly thereafter. In the meanwhile, Rajesh had c returned to the scene and noticed that Shivraj was lying dead. ASI Jukte recorded the statement of Rajesh, Ex.19 and on the basis, a formal FIR was registered at the Police Station. The dead body was also despatched for the post-mortem. The ASI also recorded the statement of PW2 Sunita, sister of the D .. deceased and PW4 Santosh. He also arrested the accused and on his interrogation, a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.