Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2282  OF 2014

Pathubha Govindji Rathod & Anr       ... Appellants

Versus

State of Gujarat     … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

PRAFULLA C.  PANT, J.

This  appeal  is  directed  against  judgment  and  order  

dated 30.6.2014 passed by High Court of Gujarat whereby  

the said Court has partly allowed the criminal appeals arisen  

out of Sessions Case No. 85 of 2003 and the cross Sessions  

Case No. 53 of 2004, which were decided by two separate  

orders  of  the  same  date,  i.e.,  5.10.2007  by  Additional  

Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Junagarh.

Page 2

2

2. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  

perused the record.

3. Prosecution story,  in  brief,  is  that  complainant Satish  

Jotva (PW-42) used to live with his family in Village Arena.  

On 2.9.2003 his uncle Bhurabhai Jivabhai (PW-46) was going  

to  his  field  on  a  bicycle.  At  about  10.30  a.m.,  he  was  

intercepted by Pathubha Govindji  Rathod (appellant no. 1)  

near bus stand.  Accused/appellant no.1 picked up a quarrel  

with  Bhurabha  Jivabhai  as  to  why  he  supported  Natha  

Nagabhai (one of the deceased) in Gram Panchayat Election  

with  whom  the  accused/appellant  no.1  was  not  having  

cordial relations. Meanwhile Natha Nagabhai came there and  

joined Bhurabhai  Jivabhai  in  the  quarrel.   This  led heated  

exchange  of  words  between  both  the  sides,  and  crowd  

gathered there.  Accused/Appellant no.1 was joined by his  

other supporters (co-accused), who were armed with deadly  

weapons like swords, knives and sticks.  Out of the accused  

persons,  accused  Pathubha  Govindji  was  armed  with  

revolver, and accused Bhavubhai Gagubhai, Bhuraji Gaguji,

Page 3

3

Kirit  Jesing  and  Punjaji  Muluji  were  armed  with  swords.  

Accused  Mala  Gaguji  was  armed with  knife.   Rest  of  the  

accused  Gaguji  Manji,  Gomubha  Halarwadi,  Navalsinh  

Motisinh,  Kanubha Jesangji,  Dhiru Jesing,  Kiritsinh Punjajai,  

Veraji  Punjaji,  Jayubha,  Samatsinh,  Sidharajsinh  Manji,  

Bharat  Manji,  Kanu Bhai  Devu bhai  and accused/appellant  

no.2 Hemubha Govindji were armed with sticks.  On hearing  

the  noise,  complainant  Satish  Jiva  Jotva  (PW-42)  and  his  

another  uncle  Bhimshi  Jiva  (PW-47),  father  of  the  

complainant  Hamir  Nagabhai  (another  deceased),  Malde  

Nagabhai  (PW-43),  Bhurabhai  Jivabhai  (PW-46),  Punjabhai  

Bhimshibhai  (PW-44),  Jagmal  Jivabhai  (PW-45)  and  some  

other  villagers  also  gathered  there.   When  the  quarrel  

further  aggravated  between  the  two  sides,  

accused/appellant  no.1  Pathubha  Govindji  exhorted  his  

supporters to kill Natha Nagabhai and teach lesson to other  

supporters.   Thereafter,  accused/appellant  no.1  Pathubha  

Govindji himself took out revolver from his pocket and fired  

at  him.  Natha  Nagabhai  suffered  bullet  injuries  on  the  

stomach and fell  down.  In  the incident,  Bhimshibhai  who

Page 4

4

was  attacked  with  sword  suffered  injury  on  his  head.  

Bhavubhai Gagubhai assaulted Punja Bhimshi with sword in  

his  hand,  and he also suffered injury on his  head.  Punjaji  

gave blow to Bharat Jiva on his head, Gomubha Halarwala  

gave blow on the head of  Jagmal Jiva.   Accused/appellant  

no.2  Hemubha  Govindji  inflicted  injury  with  sword  on  the  

head of  Hamir  Nagabhai.   Accused  Malde Nagabhai  Jotva  

assaulted with stick to some other persons.  Several persons  

suffered injuries in the incident on both sides.  According to  

prosecution,  after  the  incident  complainant  took his  uncle  

Natha Nagabhai on his motor cycle to Mangrol Government  

Hospital,  and  other  injured  persons  were  also  taken  on  

rickshaw to said Hospital for medical treatment.  Out of the  

injured Natha Nagabhai, Bhimshi Jivabhai, Hamir Nagabhai,  

Bhura  Jivabhai,  Malde  Nagabhai,  Punjabhai  Bhimshibhai,  

Jagmal Jivabhai were shifted to Junagarh Hospital for further  

treatment.  In  the  incident  Natha  Nagabhai  and  Hamir  

Nagabhai succumbed to the injuries and died.

Page 5

5

4. A complaint  was given by Satish Jiva Jotva regarding  

the incident on the basis of which ICR No. 70 of 2003 was  

registered  at  Mangrol  Police  Station.   A  cross  version  of  

incident  (ICR No.  71  of  2003)  was  also  registered  by  the  

police.  After investigation, charge sheets were filed by the  

police against both set of accused.  Sessions Trial No. 85 of  

2003  relates  to  the  charge  sheet  filed  against  

accused/appellants Pathubha Govindji Rathod and Hemubha  

Govindji  Rathod  and  eighteen  others.   After  hearing  the  

parties in the aforesaid sessions case, a charge was framed  

by the trial court against all the twenty accused in respect of  

offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149,  

307 r/w 149, 326 r/w 149, 325 r/w 149, 324 r/w 149 and 506  

(2) r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of  

the  Bombay  Police  Act.  Accused/appellant  no.1  Pathubha  

Govindji  was  further  charged  in  respect  of  offence  

punishable under Section 25(1)(a) and Section 27 of Arms  

Act.  All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be  

tried.

Page 6

6

5. On  this,  prosecution  got  examined  PW-1  Dr.  M.G.  

Satrodiya,  PW-2  Dr.  Linesh  Makwana,  PW-3  Dr.  Anil  

Sakhiyani,  PW-4  Naran  Punja,  PW-5  Desha  Devshi,  PW-6  

Nasinghbhai Nensibhai, PW-7 Parsottambhai Savjibhai, PW-8  

Ratibhai  Khimjibhai,  PW-9  Nagabhai  Hirabhai,  PW-10  

Virambhai  Kanabhai,  PW-11  Hardas  Desa,  PW-12  Arjan  

Govindbhai,  PW-13  Vikram  Arjanbhai,  PW-14  Bhikhabhai  

Virabhai,  PW-15  Mansukh  Amarsinh,  PW-16  Lakhabhai  

Pethabhai,  PW-17 Laxmanbhai Makwana, PW-18 Rasulkhan  

Gulamkhan, PW-19 Razak Ismail, PW-20 Hanif Ibrahim, PW-

21 Ali Giga, PW-22 Ismail Hussain, PW-23 Gova Parbat, PW-

24  Kanjibhai  Karsanbhai,  PW-25  Hasmukh  Raja,  PW-26  

Karmanbhai Jethabhai, PW-27 Arjan Parbat, PW-28 Musabhai  

Allarakha,  PW-29  Amadbhai  Musabhai,  PW-30  Dhirubhai  

Naranbhai,  PW-31 Mohanlal  Khimjibhai,  PW-32 Mamadbhai  

Ismail, PW-33 Ibrahim Kasam, PW-34 Atul Prabhudas, PW-35  

Dr.  Jigna  Dave,  PW-36  Dr.  Kartik  Modha,  PW-37  Bhanji  

Vashram,  PW-38  Ranchhodbhai  Rathod,  PW-39  Dr.  

Bhalchandra Joshi, PW-40 Dr. Jitendra Gajera, PW-41 Dr. P.B.  

Nariyani, PW-42 Satishbhai Bhimsinh Jothwa (complainant),

Page 7

7

PW-43 Malde Naga (injured), PW-44 Punjabhai Bjhimsinhbhai  

(injured), PW-45 Jagmal Jivabhai, PW-46 Bhurabhai Jivabhai  

(injured),  PW-47  Bhimsinhbhai  Jivabhai  (injured),  PW-48  

Chandrakant Natwarlal, PW-49 Mahipatbhai Bhikhubha, PW-

50 Ravjibhai  Valjibhai,  PW-51 Jayeshbhai  Tapubhai,  PW-52  

Karsanbhai Gangabhai, PW-53 Subhashbhai Vadhera, PW-54  

Hasmukhlal  Aahir,  PW-55  Arjanbhai  Meraman,  PW-56  

Harishchandra  Trivedi,  PW-57  Bharatbhai  Mistri,  PW-58  

Vishnukumar  Vyas,  PW-59  Manharlal  Mehta  (Investigating  

Officer), and PW-60 Kalekhan Kureshi (Investigating Officer).  

6. The trial court put oral evidence of above witnesses and  

documentary  evidence  including  medical  reports,  inquest  

reports, post mortem reports of Natha Nagabhai and that of  

Hamirbhai  Nagabhai,  complaint,  serologist  report  and  

chemical analyst  report to the accused under Section 313 of  

Cr.P.C.  In reply to the prosecution evidence accused stated  

that evidence adduced against them is incorrect.  It is also  

pleaded that it were the accused, who were attacked by the  

complainant and his supporters.  In defence, it was brought

Page 8

8

on  record  that  serious  injury  was  caused  by  Hamir  Naga  

(deceased)  to  accused/appellant  no.1  Pathubha  Govindji,  

with a knife.  It is also brought on record that from the side  

of  accused/appellants,  Gumansinh  Motibha,  Juvan  Singh  

Gogubha,  Punjaji  Muluji,  Navalsinh,  Pathubha  (present  

appellant no. 1), and Punja Bhimshi suffered injuries.  It is  

also established that in cross Sessions Case No. 53 of 2004,  

witnesses of  present case,  namely,  Malde Nagabhai  Jotva,  

Bhimshi  Jivabhai  Jotva,  Jagmal  Jivabhai  Jotva,  Bhurabhai  

Jivabhai Jotva, Punjabhai Bhimshibhai Jotva are accused, who  

assaulted the accused of the present case.  Due to death of  

Hamir Naga, his name did not figure in charge-sheet as an  

accused in the said sessions case.

7. After  hearing  the  parties,  learned  Sessions  Judge  

decided both the sessions trials by two separate orders of  

the same date and recorded conviction against the accused  

in both the cross cases.  In Sessions Case No. 53 of 2004 the  

five  accused,  namely,  Malde  Nagabhai  Jotva,  Bhimshi  

Jivabhai  Jotva,  Jagmal  Jivabhai  Jotva,  Bhurabhai  Jivabhai

Page 9

9

Jotva,  Punjabhai  Bhimshibhai  Jotva  were  convicted  by  the  

trial  court under Sections 323,  324, 325, 147,148 all  read  

with Section149 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 135  

of  the  Bombay Police Act.   Each one of   accused in  said  

Sessions Case No. 53 of 2004 was sentenced to undergo five  

years’ simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/-  

under Section 326 r/w Section 149 IPC, simple imprisonment  

for  a  period of  one month and to pay a fine of  Rs.1000/-  

under Section 324 r/w Section 149 IPC, simple imprisonment  

for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-  

under Section 147 r/w Section 149 IPC, simple imprisonment  

for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under  

Section 325 r/w Section 149 IPC, simple imprisonment for a  

period  of  one  year  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  Rs.1000/-  under  

Section 148  r/w Section 149 IPC.

8. On the other hand, in Sessions Case No. 85 of 2005 in  

which the present appellants were accused, the trial court  

convicted and sentenced each of the twenty accused under  

Sections 302, 307, 326, 325, and 324 all r/w Section 149 IPC,

Page 10

10

to  undergo  imprisonment  for  life  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  

Rs.5000/-  under  Section  302  r/w  Section  149  IPC,  

imprisonment for seven years and directed to pay a fine of  

Rs.2500/-  under  Section  307  r/w  Section  149  IPC,  

imprisonment for a period of five years and directed to pay a  

fine  of  Rs.2500/-  under  Section  326  r/w  Section  149  IPC.  

Similar  sentence was  passed against  each  of  them under  

section 325 r/w Section 149 IPC.  As to the offence under  

Section 324 r/w Section 149 IPC each one was sentenced to  

imprisonment  for  one  year  and  directed  to  pay  a  fine  of  

Rs.1000/-.   Similar sentence was passed under Section 147  

r/w  Section  149  IPC.   On  the  count  of  charge  of  offence  

punishable under Section 148 r/w Section 149 IPC each one  

of  twenty  accused  was  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  a  

period  of  one year  and directed  to  pay fine  of  Rs.1000/-.  

Under  Section  506  r/w  Section  149  IPC,  the  trial  court  

sentenced  each  convict  to  imprisonment  for  a  period  of  

seven years and directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-.  The trial  

Court  further  convicted  accused/appellant  no.1  Pathubha  

Govindji under Section 27 of Arms Act, and sentenced him to

Page 11

11

imprisonment for a period of three years and directed to pay  

a fine of Rs.2500/-.

9. Criminal Appeal No. 1391 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal  

No.1394 of 2007 were filed by the convicts of Sessions Case  

No. 85 of 2003, and Criminal Appeal No. 1244 of 2007 was  

filed by the convicts of Sessions Case No. 53 of 2004, before  

the High Court.  All the three appeals were decided by the  

High Court by common judgment challenged before us.  The  

High Court decided three appeals with following directions:

“26. For the foregoing reasons, the following order  is passed;

(I) All the three appeals are partly allowed.

(II)   Insofar  as  Criminal  Appeal  No.1391/2007  and1394/2007 are concerned, the judgment and  order  passed  by  the  Court  of  learned  Addl.  Sessions  Judge,  Junagadh  in  Sessions  Case  No.85/2003 dated 05.10.2007 is modified to the  extent  that  original  accused  no.1Pathubha  is  convicted for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC  and  is  sentenced  to  undergo  imprisonment  for  life. The order regarding fine and default sentence  is  not  disturbed qua original  accused no.1.  It  is  also clarified that punishment of imprisonment for  life imposed upon original accused no.1 shall not  mean imprisonment till  last breath and that the  State may grant the accused benefit of remission

Page 12

12

at  the  appropriate  time.  His  conviction  and  sentence u/s.27 of the Arms Act is also confirmed.

Insofar  as  original  accused  no.2  Hemubha  is  concerned,  his  conviction  is  altered  to  one  punishable  u/s.304  Part1  IPC  instead  of  Section  307 r/w. Section 149 IPC. For conviction u/s.304  Part1 IPC, original accused no.2 is sentenced to  undergo imprisonment  for  Ten years.  The order  regarding  fine  and  default  sentence  is  not  disturbed  qua  original  accused  no.2.  The  jail  report shows that original accused no.2 is on bail.  His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is ordered  to  surrender  to  custody  within  a  period  of  Ten  Weeks from today.

Out  of  original  accused  no.3  to  20,  original  accused no.5, original accused no.13 and original  accused  no.16  have  expired.  Therefore,  the  appeals stand abated qua the said three accused  persons.

Insofar  as  the  remaining  accused  persons  are  concerned, viz. original accused no.3, 4, 6 to 9, 11  to 12 and 14, 15 and 17 to 20, their conviction is  altered to one punishable u/s.323 IPC without the  aid of Section 149 IPC. For conviction u/s.323 IPC,  the sentence already undergone by each of the  accused  persons  is  ordered  to  be  treated  as  sufficient  sentence  and  each  of  the  accused  is  ordered  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.2500/.  None  of  the  accused person is required to undergo any further  sentence  in  respect  of  the  offence  in  question.  The  above  accused  persons  are  on  bail  and  hence,  their  bail  bonds  stand  cancelled  and  surety, if any, stands discharged.

Rest  of  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  remains unaltered.

Page 13

13

(III)   Insofar as Criminal Appeal No.1244/2007 is  concerned, the judgment and order passed by the  Court  of  learned  Addl.  Sessions  Judge and  Fast  Track  Court,  Junagadh  in  Sessions  Case  No.53/2004  dated  05.10.2007  is  modified  whereby, each of the five accused persons,  viz.  original accused no.1 to 5, is convicted u/s. 323  IPC  without  the  aid  of  Section  149  IPC.  Their  conviction,  accordingly,  stands  altered  to  one  punishable u/s.323 IPC. For conviction u/s.323 IPC,  the sentence already undergone by each of the  five accused persons is ordered to be treated as  sufficient  sentence  and  each  of  the  accused  is  ordered  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.2500/.  None  of  the  accused  person  is  required  to  undergo  further  sentence  in  respect  of  the  offence  in  question.  The  above  accused  persons  are  on  bail  and  hence,  their  bail  bonds  stand  cancelled  and  surety, if any, stands discharged.

Rest  of  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  remains unaltered.”

10. The present appeal has been filed before us by way of  

Special Leave Petition, by two of the above convicts, namely,  

Pathubha Govindji Rathod and Hemubha Govindji Rathod.

11. The only  point  pressed and argued before  us  in  this  

appeal  is  that  the  courts  below have  erred  in  law in  not  

accepting  the  plea  of  private  defence  taken  by  appellant  

no.1.   It  is  argued  that  the  accused/appellant  no.1  was

Page 14

14

assaulted with a knife and suffered the injury on the vital  

part, as such he has a right of private defence to save his  

person.   It  is  further  contended  that  charge  relating  to  

causing death of Natha Bhai with a fire arm, even if proved,  

is covered by Exception 2 of Section 300 IPC.

12. We  have  considered  the  submissions  of  the  learned  

counsel for the appellants.  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.”

13. It  is  not  disputed in  the present  case  that  there  are  

cross  versions of  the  incident,  and cross  complaints  were  

lodged with the police.  It is also not disputed that in both  

the cases police submitted charge sheets against both set of  

accused.   It  is  also  evident  from  the  record  that  both  

Sessions Case No 85 of 2003 and Sessions Case No. 53 of

Page 15

15

2004  resulted  in  conviction  on  conclusion  of  trial  by  

Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Junagarh.   Considering  the  

number of persons involved in the incident it can be safely  

said that it  is  a case of free fight between two groups of  

people.  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.

14. 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.   Referring  to  case  of  Bhanwar  

Singh v. State of M.P.1, this Court, in State of Rajasthan  

v. Manoj Kumar2, has observed as under: -

“15.3. In Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P., it has  been ruled to the effect that for a plea of right of  private defence to succeed in totality, it must be  proved  that  there  existed  a  right  to  private  defence  in  favour  of  the  accused,  and  that  this  right extended to causing death; and if the court  

1 (2008) 16 SCC 657 2 (2014) 5 SCC 744

Page 16

16

were to reject the said plea, there are two possible  ways in which this may be done i.e. on one hand,  it may be held that there existed a right to private  defence  of  the  body,  however,  more  harm than  necessary was caused or, alternatively, this right  did  not  extend  to  causing  death  and  in  such  a  situation  it  would  result  in  the  application  of  Section 300 Exception 2 IPC.”

15. In  Mohd. Khalil Chisti  v. State of Rajasthan3,   this  

court has observed in para 42 as follows: -

“42. The analysis of the materials clearly shows  that two versions of the incident adduced by the  prosecution  are  discrepant  with  each  other.  In  such a situation where the prosecution leads two  sets of evidence each one which contradicts and  strikes at the other and shows it to be unreliable,  the  result  would  necessarily  be  that  the  court  would  be  left  with  no  reliable  and  trustworthy  evidence upon which the conviction of the accused  might be based. Though the accused would have  the  benefit  of  such  situation  and  the  counsel  appearing for the appellants prayed for acquittal  of the appellants of all the charges, in view of the  principles  which  we  have  already  discussed,  we  are of the view that each accused can be fastened  with  individual  liability  taking  into  consideration  the specific role or part attributed to each of the  accused.  In  other  words,  both  sides  can  be  convicted for their individual acts and normally no  right of private defence is available to either party  and they will be guilty of their respective acts”.

16. No doubt normally the right of private defence is not  

available  to  either  of  the  parties  in  incidents  of  group  3  (2013) 2 SCC 541

Page 17

17

fighting, but that is not a rule without exception.  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.

17. 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.

Page 18

18

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.   

18. The appeal stands disposed of.

Page 19

19

   ………………………………J.                                [Dipak Misra]

………………………………J.                                                  [Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi, January  21 , 2015.