A person faced with injury with a deadly weapon to his life cannot be expected to weigh in balance the precise force needed to avoid danger. No doubt normally the right of private defence is not available to either of the parties in incidents of group fighting, but that is not a rule without exception.-2015 S.C. msklawreports


  A person faced with injury with a  deadly  weapon  to  his  life  cannot  be
expected to weigh in balance the  precise  force  needed  to  avoid  danger.

No doubt normally the right of private defence is not  available  to  either
of the parties in incidents of group  fighting,  but  that  is  not  a  rule
without exception.-2015 S.C. msklawreports

Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC reads as under: -
"Exception 2.-Culpable homicide is  not  murder  if  the  offender,  in  the
exercise in good faith  of  the  right  of  private  defence  of  person  or
property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of  the
person  against  whom  he  is  exercising  such  right  of  defence  without
premeditation, and  without  any  intention  of  doing  more  harm  than  is
necessary for the purpose of such defence."

 It  is  settled
principle of law that in  the  cases  of  free  fights  accused  are  to  be
fastened with individual liability taking into  consideration  the  specific
role assigned to each one of them, and normally right of private defence  is
not available in such cases unless circumstances in  a  given  case  warrant
so.

 In the case at hand,  
we  have  a  special  circumstance
where the injured person (appellant no. 1) who was given 2cm x 2cm  x  1.5cm
deep knife blow  on  his  back  (scapular  region)  has  retorted  by  using
licensed firearm, and killed  one  of  his  rivals  in  the  same  incident.
Accused/appellant Pathubha Govindji has taken plea of private defence  right
from beginning of the trial.  
From the judgment of the trial court also,  it
is clear that the plea of private defence was taken by the  appellant  no.1.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and evidence  on
record, it is evident that accused/appellant no.1 Pathubha  Govindji  Rathod
who suffered knife injury in the incident has caused death  of  one  of  the
deceased  by  firing  several  shots  thereby  exceeding  right  of  private
defence.  Injuries suffered by both the sides are on record.
In the above circumstances, from the evidence, as discussed  above,  we  are
inclined to accept the argument that it is a case of culpable  homicide  not
amounting to murder covered  under  Exception  2  of  Section  300  of  IPC.
Therefore, after  weighing  the  submissions  of  learned  counsel  for  the
parties and going through the papers on record, we are of the  opinion  that
appeal of the  accused/appellant  no.  1  deserves  to  be  allowed  partly.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the  conviction  and  sentence
recorded against accused/appellant no.1 under  Section  302  IPC  read  with
Section 149 IPC is set aside.  
Instead he (accused/appellant  no.1  Pathubha
Govindji Rathod) is convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced  to
imprisonment for a period of ten years and directed to pay fine of Rs.5000/-
, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment  for  a
further period of six months.  He is reported to have undergone  nine  years
and six months of imprisonment.  He shall serve out       unserved  part  of
the   sentence.    
The   conviction   and    sentence    recorded    against
accused/appellant no. 2 Hemubha Govindji Rathod under  Section  304  Part  I
read with Section 149 IPC, does not require any interference.
The appeal stands disposed of. -2015 S.C. msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more