REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 880 OF 2009

Nagji Odhavji Kumbhar & Anr. …….Appellants

             Versus

State of Gujarat ………Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Hemant Gupta, J.

The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the

High  Court  of  Gujarat  at  Ahmedabad  on  24.10.2008  maintaining

conviction for offences under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC against the

appellants for causing death of Bhura Govind and Lakha Arjan.

2. The  prosecution  case  is  that  on  1st July  1987  at  about  12

midnight in Village Prempara-Rampara, the appellants caused injuries

to Bhura Govind and Lakha Arjan with spears etc and on account of

grievous injuries inflicted, both of them died on the spot. The FIR was

lodged at 7 AM on 2nd July 1987 and the appellants were arrested on

1

17th July 1987. The cause of occurrence is that the appellants were not

giving right of way to the deceased. The complainant party had filed

the  civil  suit  in  which  injunction  was  granted  in  their  favour.  The

appellants also lodged a cross case which is Sessions Case No. 97 of

1987.

3. After completion of investigations, the appellants were made to

stand  trial.  The  appellants  have  been  convicted  for  life  for  offence

under Section 302 but no separate punishment was inflicted for the

offence under Section 324 IPC.

4. In the present appeal, the argument of learned counsel for the

appellants is that the deceased and their accomplices, 9 in number,

were  the  aggressors.  The  injuries  have  been  inflicted  on  both  the

appellants. Such injuries have been proved by PW-10, Dr. Nikhilkumar

Buch who was posted at Civil Hospital, Junagarh at the relevant time.

The  appellants  have  remained  in  hospital  from  02.07.1987  to

17.07.1987.  The  appellants  have  received  grievous  injuries,  while

protecting the possession of their land, thus, they have acted in their

right of private defence.

5. It is also argued in the alternative that the occurrence has taken

place at the spur of the moment without any pre-meditation and that

the  appellants  are  not  taken any advantage or  acted  in  a  cruel  or

unusual  manner,  therefore,  the  conviction  of  the  appellants  for  the

offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is not sustainable.

In fact at best, an offence under Section 304 (Part II) can be said to

2

have made out. The appellants have undergone more than 11 years of

actual  imprisonment,  therefore,  in  the  event  the  appellants  are

convicted  for  an  offence  under  Section  304(Part  II),  they  would  be

entitled to be released having completed the sentence which may be

imposed as the maximum sentence is 10 years for an offence under

Section 304(Part II).

6. The argument  is  based on the  statement  of  PW-13,  Murlidhar

Vasu, the Investigating Officer.  He deposed that the appellant No. 1

was lying at the spot and was bleeding. It is also argued that Vajibai,

wife of appellant no. 1, has been examined as defence witness. She

deposed that  appellant  no.  1  came home and  informed her  that  9

persons  have  assaulted  both  the  appellants  and  it  is  she  who

telephoned the police about the occurrence. It is also argued that the

cross case registered on the basis of complaint of the appellants was

separately  investigated  and  the  trial  conducted.  Thus,  the  primary

argument is that the occurrence having taken place at the spur of the

moment, the conviction of the appellants for an offence under Section

302 IPC is not maintainable.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the judgment

of this Court in Jangir Singh Vs. State of Punjab1 wherein the right

of private defence was found to be valuable right and that this right

should not be construed narrowly.

1 Criminal Appeal No. 2499 of 2009 decided on 31.10.2018

3

8. Before we consider the argument raised by learned counsel for

the appellants, injuries received by appellant no. 1 (Ex.12), who was

examined on 02.07.1987 at 5.15 AM by PW-10-Dr. Nikhilkumar Buch,

are as under:  

“D/E (1) CLW on central part of head 21/2”X1/2”X up to bone deep vertical. (2)  Incise  wound  on  forearm  back  middle  part 1”X1/4”X up to muscle deep oblique. (3) Incise wound on upper part of Lt foreman back ¾”X1/4”X up to bone deep vertical. (4) CLW on route of Rt ear back 11/2”X1/4”X1/4” vertical. (5) Border of Rt ear ¾th lower part cut. (6)  Swelling  and  tenderness  of  Rt  forearm  9 fracture. (7) Abrasion on Lt shin lower part 1”X1/2” vertical (8) 9 fracture of proximal phalanx of Lt ring finger. Cause  of  injury-Injury  No.  2,3,5  are  inflicted  by some sharp cutting object. Injury No. 1,4,6,7,8 are inflicted by some hard and blunt object.”

9. In  respect  of  appellant  no.2,  the  injuries  received  by  him  as

reported by PW-10-Dr. Nikhilkumar Buch (Ex.11) are as under:

“C/o Assaulted at midnight O/E  1)  Incise  wound  on  frontal  part  of  head 2”x1/2”x up to bone deep vertical. 2) Incise wound on Lt fore arm Lower part outer side 1”x1/4”x1/4” vertical. 3) Incise wound on Lt forearm Lower part backside ½”x1/4”x1/4” oblique. 4) Incise wound on Rt shin lower part 1”x1/2”x1/4” vertical. 5) Swelling and tenderness of 2” diameter on Rt upper outer of Thigh. 6)  Swelling  and  tenderness  of  Lt  forearm  9 fracture. Cause of  injury-Injury No.  1 to 4 are inflicted by some sharp cutting object. Injury No. 5 and 6 are inflicted by some hard and blunt object.”

4

10. The  post-mortem report  of  the  deceased-Bhura  Govind  shows

injuries on the vital parts. The injuries inflicted are on the chest. These

injuries are as under:

“1. One pocket wound, at the place of rib of No. 3, which injury was in the left chest in middle part which wound was 22 inch x 1 inch horizontal and 7 inch depth, which would was slanting. 2. One pocket wound, on left back part was 1.5 inch x half inch 2.5 inch depth.

3. One would was pocket in the left side of the body. Which was slanting of 1 inch x half inch x 1.5 inch in shape.

There was fracture at injury No. 1 on left third rib. These all  injuries  were  of  before  the death.  The corresponding injuries of which were as under:-

1. The layer of the lungs was cut on the front and back at the place of injury No. 1. 2. In  right  lungs,  upto  injury  no.  2,  the  wound was stretched. Which was stretched upto the lower lib. 3. The  upper  part  of  the  left  lungs,  there  was wound  from  front  to  back  straight.  Which  was corresponding wound to injury no. 1. The vein of lungs and artery and the trachea were cut. In the left side of chest the air was there and the blood was gathered/collected.”

11. The injuries on the dead body of Lakha Arjan are as follows:  

“1. On  the  shoulder  of  left  arm,  one  pocket wound, which wound was slanting of 1 inch x 0.5 inch depth.

5

2. One pocket wound, on the left side below of the armpit the wound was 2.5 inch x 1 inch x 6 inch, which would was going to horizontal side.

He states that  these injuries  were of  before the death. He states that on the body of the deceased there  was  corresponding  injuries  which  were  as under:- 1. The layer of left lungs was cut at the place of injury  No.  2.  The  upper  part  on  trachea  of  left lungs, the upper part of the left lungs was cut. The left lungs were tightened and there was air in it and the blood was gathered. 2. The vein and artery of the lungs were cut.”

12. The prosecution has relied upon the statement of complainant

PW-3,  Ramabhai  Rajan  as  also  the  statement  of  PW-4  Govindbhai

Punabhai who are injured witnesses. PW-2 Dr. Govindbhai Lakhmanbhai

has been examined to prove the injuries on prosecution witnesses.

13. In  fact,  the  presence  of  the  two  witnesses  at  the  time  of

occurrence is not seriously disputed. It is statement of PW 3 which led

to lodging of First Information Report that the appellants who were 7 to

8 in number challenged the witnesses at about 12 night on 01.07.1987.

The appellants were having spear, Hansraj was having axe and others

were having sticks. They attacked the deceased and both the injured

witnesses with spears and axe.

14. The  learned  Trial  Court  granted  benefit  of  doubt  to  Hansraj

whereas convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302 IPC.

15. The appellants have lodged cross First Information Report, Ex.23.

There is no evidence on the part of the appellants that the deceased

were armed with any weapon in the first version, when they lodged

6

report. The right of private defence is not available when the alleged

assailants are unarmed. The right of private defence is to protect the

person and the property. In such right, the person cannot cause more

harm than what is necessary for the protection of the person and the

property. What harm can be expected from the hands of the deceased

when they were un-armed, whereas from the testimony of PW-3 and

PW-4, the injured witnesses, the appellants were armed with spears

and  other  weapons.  The  Post-Mortem  report  corroborates  an  oral

testimony  that  both  the  deceased  have  received  stab  wounds.

Therefore, the appellants cannot be said to have acted in the right of

their private defence.

16. It has been held in the judgment of this Court in  Jangir Singh

case (supra), that in order to succeed in such plea of private defence,

it must be proved that the right of private defence extended to cause

death. The said judgment arises out of the fact wherein, the accused

and the deceased were the volunteers in the Punjab Home Guard and

both had self-loading rifles of 0.003. They had altercation in respect of

borrowing  of  money  for  about  15  minutes,  thereafter  the  appellant

fired at the deceased which has taken his life. The Court found that

both  the  deceased  and  the  appellant  were  altercating  face  to  face

standing at a distance of 10 feet from each other. Keeping in view the

facial expressions, the appellant felt imminent danger from the fact of

aiming  of  rifle  at  him  by  the  deceased.  In  the  present  case,  the

7

deceased were not carrying any weapon which is  evident from first

statement given on behalf of the appellants.

17. The argument that one of the appellants was lying in a pool of

blood  at  the  place  of  occurrence  on  the  basis  of  statement  of  the

Investigating Officer does not merit any consideration. The first version

of the appellants is that the deceased were not armed. The deceased

may be accompanied by some other person who might have caused

injuries on the person of the appellants. However, there is no evidence,

who  were  the  persons  accompanying  the  deceased  and  with  what

weapon and what is their role. Such aspect is not the subject matter of

the  present  trial.  Separate  trial  is  in  progress  in  respect  of  First

Information Report lodged by the appellants. Since the deceased were

not armed, therefore,  the appellants are not entitled to the right of

private defence.   

18. The  deceased  had  multiple  stab  wounds  on  the  chest.  Since

there are multiple wounds, it cannot be said that the appellants have

acted at the spur of the moment without pre-meditation and that the

appellants are not taken any advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual

manner. It is not a case of single injury which one can infer on account

of sudden fight. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the alternate

argument  that  the  appellants  are  entitled  to  be  convicted  under

Section 304 IPC as they have given multiple injuries on the vital parts

of the deceased. The learned Trial Court as well as the High Court was

perfectly justified in law in convicting and sentencing the appellants for

8

the offence under Section 302 IPC. We do not find any error in the

order  passed  which  may  warrant  our  interference  in  the  present

appeal. The criminal appeal is dismissed.

….…….……………………….J     (Sanjay Kishan Kaul)

..……………………………….J              (Hemant Gupta)

New Delhi April 23, 2019

9