Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hanumat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Atul Sreedharan, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322
1 CRA-2287-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 13th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2287 of 2007
HANUMAT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Shrivastava - Amicus Curiae for the appellants.
Shri Amit Sharma - Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Ratna Bharat Tiwari - Advocate for the complainant.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Smt. Anuradha Shukla The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by three appellants, who were convicted by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, by the judgement passed on 11.10.2007 in Sessions Trial No.354/2005 for the offence of Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC for committing murder of Mohan and causing injuries to Raghuvir. For these offence, they were sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months, respectively, along with the default clause. Vide order dated 21.04.2025, the case is listed for securing the presence of appellant no. 2 Bhura Yadav. Though he is not present, but with the consent of parties the matter is heard finally on behalf of all the appellants.
2. Facts of the case would need a brief summary here. Barelal was the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 2 CRA-2287-2007 father of appellants, who passed away prior to the date of incident; admittedly, he was the owner of the land, which was allegedly purchased by Mohan, the deceased, about two years prior to the incident, however, no registered deed was executed during the lifetime of Barelal; it is claimed by complainant party that before death, Barelal had handed over the possession of that property to Mohan; on the date of incident i.e. 26.06.2005 appellants Bhura and Lallu, with an intent to regain possession of property, went there along with Ram Lakhan, the brother of Hariram, driving the tractor of Hariram for the purpose of ploughing the field; Mohan asked them to stop the act, but they did not heed to it, therefore Mohan went to Hariram and, at his request, Hariram wrote a note for his brother Ram Lakhan to come back immediately;
3. The story further unfolds that Mohan again went to the field and this time his brother Raghuvir and other persons, namely Kishore, Harbal and Balram, too accompanied him; it was 10.30 a.m. when Mohan tried to stop the tractor, but he was attacked by appellant Hanumath with farsa twice on head; his brother Raghuvir tried to intervene, but he too was attacked by appellant Bhura with an axe and by appellant Lallu with a ballam (spear); Kusumrani, the wife of Mohan, who was also present on the scene of occurrence, was given blows with the blunt side of axe by appellant Bhura and Ram Lakhan (acquitted by the trial court) gave her blows with fists and kicks; the incident was witnessed by Bhaiyalal, Kishore, Balram and Harbal. The injured were then taken to hospital and Bhaiyalal Yadav, the father of deceased Mohan, got the FIR registered on same day at 13.15 p.m. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 3 CRA-2287-2007
4. In the crime registered at Crime No.122/05 the investigation was undertaken; during treatment Mohan passed away on 28.07.2005 i.e. almost more than a month after the incident; the weapons used in assault were seized, the appellants were arrested, the other investigating proceedings were completed and charge-sheet was filed; the appellants faced trial for the offence of Sections 302, 307 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC for committing murder of Mohan, attempting murder of Raghuvir and causing injury to Kusumrani, but they all were acquitted of the offence of Section 323 IPC and, instead of the charge of Section 307 IPC, they were convicted for the offence of Section 323 IPC and were sentenced as aforesaid. Another person Ram Lakhan, tried as accused, was acquitted of all the charges.
5. Appellants in this criminal appeal have taken the grounds that the aggression was shown by the complainant side by committing the offence of criminal trespass in the agriculture field belonging to appellants by declaring that it was purchased by Mohan from the father of appellants; it is also submitted that three women from the appellants side sustained injuries, including simple and grievous, when the complainant party entered into the field and interfered in the agriculture work that was being executed by these three women belonging to the family of appellants; it is argued that even from the story narrated by prosecution, it is clear that Mohan along with other persons arrived on the field of appellants and tried to stop the tractor, which was plowing the field; it is also argued that though Mohan was claiming that he was the owner of the field, but no document regarding this ownership or delivery of possession of that field to Mohan was brought on Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 4 CRA-2287-2007 record to support the claim; further, a cross criminal case was registered against the complainant side regarding the same incident in which trial was held against complainant party. It has, therefore, been requested that the appeal should be allowed and the appellants should be acquitted.
6. State has opposed the appeal claiming that the incident was witnessed by various persons and they all have testified in favour of prosecution. There is nothing substantial which could make their testimony unworthy of credit; the act of appellants was ghastly resulting into murder of one person, attempt to murder of another and injuries to an innocent woman. A request has, therefore, been made to dismiss this criminal appeal.
7. Learned counsel for all the parties have been heard and the record has been produced.
8. From bare facts, it is clear that both the sides have set up a case that this incident of assault occurred in a field which originally belonged to Barelal, the father of appellants, and deceased Mohan was claiming ownership over this piece of land on the basis of an agreement allegedly executed by Barelal in favour of Mohan. It is pertinent to note that Bhaiyalal (P.W.5), the father of deceased, Balram (P.W.6), the son of deceased, Kusumrani (P.W.7), the wife of deceased and Raghuvir (P.W.10), the brother of deceased, all have claimed that the agreement was executed on stamp paper, which was available with them, still that important piece of document was neither given to the Investigating Officer nor was produced in the Court during trial. Admittedly, no sale-deed was executed regarding this transaction.
9. Interestingly, no prosecution witness has disclosed in statements the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 5 CRA-2287-2007 names of persons in whose presence this agreement was executed. Bhaiyalal (P.W.5) has claimed in para 27 that entries regarding possession of Mohan over this property was being recorded in the Patwari record, but he is contradicted on this fact by Raghuvir (P.W.10), the son of Bhaiyalal, who has admitted in para 36 that Patwari record had no entry about the possession of Mohan on this property and even today there is no such entry about their possession. It needs to be recorded here that no revenue record has been produced in support of claim made by Bhaiyalal in para 27.
10. The alleged agreement which was a bone of contention in the entire episode was not produced in evidence, but if we leave this discrepancy apart, then also the ocular testimony regarding the execution of any such agreement is not creditworthy. Some witnesses claim that this agreement was executed about two years prior to the incident, while some claim it to be in existence for 6-7 years from before the incident. The area purchased under this agreement by Mohan is also under dispute. Some claim that it was only one and a half acre land while for others its area was two and a half acre. It has already been mentioned above that the witnesses to this agreement were neither examined nor their names were disclosed. It is an admitted fact that no proceedings were initiated either by Mohan or by his successors on the basis of alleged agreement for execution of sale-deed or recovery of possession. The consideration amount paid by Mohan against the alleged sale has also not been disclosed. Thus, it can be observed that without establishing the existence of any agreement to sell, it was being claimed by complainant side that the property on which the incident occurred, was Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 6 CRA-2287-2007 already sold by the father of appellants to Mohan and was in possession of Mohan from before the incident and it is apparent that on the date of incident, Mohan interfered in the possession of appellants on the basis of his groundless right.
11. Kusumrani (P.W.7) has disclosed that on the date of incident at around 10:00 a.m. a Panchayat meeting was held, which was summoned at the request of Mohan regarding the dispute between him and appellants over the disputed agricultural land and this fact has been admitted by other witness also, namely Harbal (P.W.8), Raghuvir (P.W.10), Ramkishore (P.W.13) and Balram (P.W.6). Although there is some variance about the time of Panchayat meeting, but it is an undisputed fact that this meeting was held prior to the commission of offence. The prosecution witnesses have also admitted the presence of appellants in that meeting and they also admit that when no decision was taken by Panchayat, appellants went towards disputed property to plough it. These facts reveal that appellants were not avoiding the Panchayat meeting regarding the disputed property and when it remained undecisive as to who has a right to do the agriculture work on the disputed field, appellants, the heirs of Barelal and the apparent owner of agriculture field, decided to plough it. Their entire conduct does not reveal that there was any aggression on their part or they avoided the Panchayat meeting or for that matter gave any provocation to the complainant's side. It appears that they were calm and composed and started ploughing the field of which they were the rightful claimants in the absence of any sale-deed or even agreement to sell.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 7 CRA-2287-2007
12. From the prosecution case, it is revealed that Mohan went to the disputed field twice. On first occasion, he asked appellants and the tractor driver Ramlakhan not to plough the field and on second occasion, he brought a letter written by Hareram, the tractor owner, instructing the driver not to plough the field and on this second occasion, he was accompanied or followed by his brothers, his father, his son and his wife. The purpose of all these persons coming to the disputed field was evidently to cause interference in the ploughing work which was going on at the behest of appellants.
13. The FIR (Ex.P-9), which was registered on the information given by Bhaiyalal, the alleged eyewitness, does not reveal the presence of any female member of appellants' family in this agriculture field. It is also silent about the injuries caused to any person from the appellants' side. From the prosecution evidence itself, it is established that a cross-case was registered against the complainant's side with FIR at Crime No.123/2005 against Raghuvir, Mohan, Bhaiyalal, Balram and Kishore. It is also established from the evidence led by both the sides that grievous injury was caused to Nanhibai while two other women, namely Jamnabai and Tukkanbai, were also caused injuries in this incident. All these three women were from the family of appellants. Despite admitting the injuries caused to the appellants' side, prosecution witnesses could not give any explanation why this fact was not disclosed in the FIR, which was written on an eyewitness account.
14. The discussion held so far brings to the conclusion that appellants did not show aggression at any point of time and it was Mohan and his family Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 8 CRA-2287-2007 members who went to the disputed agriculture field which, on papers, did not belong to them and was not even in their possession, apparently they still interfered in the agriculture work which was in progress on the directions of appellants and tried to send off the tractor which had already ploughed half of the field. It is claimed that in the following events three persons from each side sustained injuries.
15. If we consider the injuries caused to the complainant's side, it needs to be noted that the trial Court acquitted the appellants of causing any injury to Kusumrani and even acquitted them of the charge of attempt to murder of Raghuvir. Thus, in this violent episode in which both the sides had participated, complainant's side sustained only simple injury to Raghuvir and victim Mohan died of his injuries almost after a month. The prosecution has not brought on record the judgment passed by trial Court in the cross-case, therefore we are not aware whether any member of complainant party was convicted in that case and for which offence, but it is clear that they faced trial for causing simple injuries to Jamnabai and Tukkanbai and grievous injury to Nanhibai.
16. Before examining the applicability of plea of self-defence and taking up the question whether appellants acted within permissible extent of right to private defence of property, it becomes necessary to examine whether the death of Mohan was a culpable homicide amounting to murder or was it a lesser degree of offence. The eyewitnesses account is that Mohan was struck on head with farsa by appellant Hanumat and another blow was given to him on left ear pinna by some hard and sharp object which, according to Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 9 CRA-2287-2007 Bhaiyalal (P.W.5), Balram (P.W.6), Kusumrani (P.W.7) and Ramkishore (P.W.13), was caused by Bhura with an axe, however, Harbal (P.W.8) and Raghuvir (P.W.10) do not corroborate the fact that Bhura gave any blow to Mohan. According to Harbal, it was Lallu who caused an injury with his spear in the stomach of Mohan while Raghuvir claims that Lallu gave a blow with an axe on the ear pinna of Mohan. Thus, all eyewitnesses are consistent on the fact that a blow with farsa was given by appellant Hanumat on the head of deceased Mohan but they are inconsistent about the name of the assailant and the weapon used by him for causing injury on ear pinna Mohan.
17. Dr. U. S. Pandey (P.W.3) had medically examined Mohan on 26.6.2005 at 1:40 p.m. and found one incised wound on right parietal region, which was bone-deep and bleeding in nature, and another incised wound on left pinna which had clotted blood. This second wound, according to him, was of simple nature and for the first wound he had advised X-ray. Dr. Subhash Jain (P.W.4) had conducted the X-ray examination and according to his report (Ex.P-8), there was fracture in right parietal bone of Mohan. The medical officers, who had given treatment to Mohan, were not examined by the prosecution. His indoor patient ticket given by Zila Rogi Kalyan Samiti, Sagar, suggests that he was referred to Medical College, Jabalpur, on 27.6.2005. The treatment papers of Medical College, Jabalpur, are not available and from the document of Ex.P-27, which is information of death given by Medical College to the police, it is revealed that Mohan was brought and admitted in Medical College Hospital, Jabalpur, on 27.6.2005 where he died on 28.7.2005.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 10 CRA-2287-2007
18. The statement of doctor, who was giving him treatment in this long duration of more than a month, was very relevant to disclose his medical condition and complications, but prosecution did not opt to examine him. The post-mortem report (Ex.P-30) was prepared by Dr. Chandra Shekhar Baghmare (P.W.18). He found soft-healed wound present at the parietal region of head, old infected wound on the left leg below the knee joint and another 3 c.m. wound blow of the aforesaid wound of left leg on the lateral side and that too was infected. He also found in the internal examination that a triangle shaped bone was missing on the parietal area and brain matter was coming out from the fractured area. His opinion was that the injured died on account of coma caused by head injury. He, however, refrained from giving any further information regarding injuries by asserting that only the treating doctor can enlighten on that.
19. The medical evidence discussed above makes it clear enough that the doctor who conducted the MLC did not find any injuries on the left leg of deceased and injury found on the left pinna was simple in nature. Therefore, only one injury was caused on vital part of deceased and victim died almost a month after the incident. There is no medical opinion on record that this head injury was of such a nature as was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. In the absence of any medical opinion to that effect, one may tempt to infer that, had it been so imminently dangerous, the victim would have died forthwith. It is an admitted fact that he survived for more than a month despite receiving this injury.
20. From the prosecution case, it comes out that the three appellants jointly Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 11 CRA-2287-2007 assaulted the deceased, but only one prominent wound was caused to him which was a head injury of grievous nature. From the statements of witnesses, it is revealed that victim had then fallen on ground and despite being allegedly armed with deadly weapons, no other substantial wound was inflicted by appellants to the victim. The only other injury found in MLC was a simple injury on ear pinna, which did not entail any serious consequences. The post-mortem report (Ex.P-30) reflects that the upper surface of head injury had healed, but on internal examination some brain matter was found coming out through the fractured area. The post-mortem report also revealed that blackish water was present in the stomach and infected wounds were present on left leg. These features suggest that in the process of nature, sepsis had set in. The question arises, whether this infection had set in even in the head injury and had complicated the medical condition. Prosecution evidence is completely silent on it.
21. It is very relevant to note that Dr. Chandra Shekhar Baghmare (P.W.18), in order to avoid questions on the nature of injuries and medical complication, has stated that only the treating doctor can answer them. Therefore, we do not have any medical opinion whether the inflicted injury on head was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or whether any supervening cause was responsible for the death of Mohan. There is also no medical evidence to suggest whether the original injury remained unhealed or fatal complications were the result of some unexpected conditions. The appellants, therefore, are entitled to benefit of doubt about the cause of death which is germinated from withholding relevant medical Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 12 CRA-2287-2007 opinion.
22. In the circumstances, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish that appellants, who jointly caused only one substantial injury of grievous nature on the head of victim Mohan, were actually intending to cause his death. It is, therefore, a case which falls under the second limb of Section 304 IPC for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder coupled only with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death. The act of appellants, therefore, in the very nature of facts falls under the ambit of Section 304 Part II IPC.
23. It is manifested from the facts discussed above that prosecution has not been able to place any material before the court to prove that the appellants were the aggressor. It is established that they were in their field where three female members of their family were also present and sustained injuries in the incident. It is also established that complainant side was trying to stop the agriculture work in the half ploughed field of appellants. These circumstances shows that right of private defence was available to them and injuries caused to three female members of their family gain significance here. It may also be observed that prosecution witnesses did not try to explain the circumstances in which these injuries were caused, including the one which was of grievous nature caused to Nanhibai. It may also be observed here that all prosecution witnesses, who have testified in its favour, are the close relatives of deceased and there is no corroboration from any independent source nor even from the members of Panchayat.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 13 CRA-2287-2007
24. In Trilokinath v. State of U.P., (2005) 13 SCC 323 , it has been held (SCC page 685, para 85) "85. Private defence can be used to ward off unlawful force to avoid unlawful detention and to escape from such detention. So far as defence of land against the trespasser is concerned, a person is entitled to use necessary and moderate force, both for preventing the trespass or to eject the trespasser. For the said purposes, the use of force must be the minimum necessary or reasonably believed to be necessary. A reasonable defence would mean a proportionate defence."
25. We also find it relevant to reproduce here Section 104 of IPC, which sets out the limits for exercising the right of private defence of property. It reads as under:
"If the offence, the committing of which, or to attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of right of private defence, be theft, mischief or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, that right does not extend to voluntarily causing of death but does extend subject to the restrictions mentioned in Section 99, to the voluntary causing to the wrong doer of any harm other than death."
26. The restrictions placed on the right of private defence of property under this section, makes it clear that if the offence against which this right is being used is only of criminal trespass, i.e. trespass on an open land, the accused cannot claim that he committed death in the exercise of this right. Incidentally, the offence of committing death pervades even into the offence of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Thus, it can be observed that if the appellants in exercise of their right of private defence of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 14 CRA-2287-2007 property have committed the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causing death of Mohan, then also they have exceeded their right of private defence.
27. Interestingly, their defence does not end here as they have claimed the right of private defence of body as well. Jamnabai (D.W.1) has stated that she along with her mother Tukkanbai and aunt Nanhibai was on the field, which was being ploughed by tractor, when deceased Mohan, Raghuvir, Kishore, Bhaiyalal and Balram came there with Raghuvir carrying katarna (a cutting weapon), Kishore carrying an axe and others carrying lathis. The witness further claims that complainant party started assault on them in which Raghuvir caused injury to her on right hand with katarna and they also caused injuries to her mother Tukkanbai and aunt Nanhibai. The witness further states that for protection of herself and her family members, she picked up the axe from the tractor and wielded it, but she is not certain who was hit by it.
28. From the statements of Jamnabai , it is reflected that the complainant party not only trespassed on the land belonging to appellants, but it was first amongst the two sides to start violence. The testimony of Jamnabai inspires confidence on the fact that violence was first exercised by complainant party for the reason that no independent witness was examined by prosecution and only close relatives of deceased have testified against appellants and they also failed to give any explanation how the appellants' family members sustained injuries in the incident. From the testimony of Jamnabai, it appears that complainant party entered her field having weapons in hands. Thus, apprehension of injuries was also very much imminent to the appellants' Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 15 CRA-2287-2007 side.
29. In Dashrath Singh v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 408 , it was stated that:
"It is here that the need to explain the injuries of serious nature received by the accused in the course of same occurrence arises. When explanation is given, the correctness of the explanation is liable to be tested. If there is an omission to explain, it may lead to the inference that prosecution has supressed some of the relevant details concerning the incident. The court has then to consider whether such omission casts a reasonable doubt on the entire prosecution story or it will have any effect on the other reliable evidence available having bearing on the origin of the incident. Ultimately, the factum of non-explanation of injuries is one circumstance which has to be kept in view while appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses. In case the prosecution version is sought to be proved by partisan or interested witnesses, the non- explanation of serious injuries may prima facie make a dent on the credibility of their evidence."
30. In Shriram v. State of M.P., (2004) 9 SCC 292 , it was observed that:
"We shall next deal with the aspect relating to injuries on the accused and the question of right of private defence. The number of injuries is not always a safe criteria for determining who the aggressor was. It cannot be stated as a universal rule that whenever the injuries are on the body of accused persons, a presumption must necessarily be raised that accused persons had caused injuries in exercise of the right of private defence. The defence has to establish that the injuries found were suffered in the same occurrence and that such injuries on the accused probablize the version of right of private defence. Non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of occurrence or in the course of altercation, is a very important circumstance, but mere non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case in all the cases. This principle applies to cases where injuries sustained by the accused are minor and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 16 CRA-2287-2007 superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, so consistent and so creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of prosecution to explain the injuries."
31. From the above decisions, it is concluded to examine whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, the entire incident needs to be examined with care and viewed in its proper setting and no mechanical or isolated approach can afford an answer. In Subramani and others v. State of Tamilnadu, (2002) 7 SCC 210 , a question arose whether the accused persons exceeded the right of private defence and the court observed:
"In the instant case, we are inclined to hold that the appellants had initially acted in exercise of their right of private defence of property and later in exercise of the right of private defence of person. It has been found that three of the appellants were also injured in the same incident and two of them had sustained injuries on their head. Luckily, the injuries did not prove to be fatal and if inflicted with more force they could have resulted in fracture of the skull and proved fatal......In these circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that appellants entertained a reasonable apprehension that death or grievous injury may be the consequence of the assault. The right of private defence, therefore, extended to the voluntarily causing of the death of assailants."
32. In this context it would be convenient to refer to Section 100 of IPC, which prescribed the limits on the exercise of right of private defence of person:-
"Section 100:- The right of private defence of body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death, or of any other harm, to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 17 CRA-2287-2007 of the descriptions, hereinafter enumerated, namely:-
(i)..........
(ii) Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
(iii).........
33. It can be gathered from above that even a reasonable apprehension about grievous hurt can give rise to a right of private defence of the body, which may extend to causing death. However, here it is already established that Nanhibai from the appellants' side had sustained grievous injuries and two other female members were caused simple injuries by complainant side during the incident, therefore the apprehension and actual danger both were present in all probabilities and consequently appellants had a right to inflict any harm, including death of the person responsible for putting the appellants in said apprehension/danger. Thus, we can infer that while exercising their right of private defence of body to thwart the imminent danger caused by the complainant side, appellants legitimately exercised their right within prescribed limits.
34. In view of facts and evidence available on record and the legal propositions holding the field, we come to the conclusion that appellants, though, over-exceeded their right of private defence of property by causing death of Mohan against an act of criminal trespass on an open land, however, the the right of private defence of body was also available to them as three of their family members were caused injuries by the complainant side and injury to one of them, namely Nanhibai, was grievous in nature. Thus, appellants had every right to cause even death of the aggressor. Hence, their act of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 18 CRA-2287-2007 Mohan stand justified in terms of the provisions of Section 100 IPC.
35. Significantly, no fact has been brought on record to establish that the right of private defence never occasioned to the appellants either to protect their property or their person within the ambit of Section 99 of IPC. The evidence discloses that appellants were willing to participate in Panchayat meeting and once it failed to give any decision, the appellants started agricultural work in their field, which was of their ownership and possession, and no document challenging their ownership or possession could be produced by prosecution in evidence. It is not established that appellants had the time to take recourse to the protection of public authorities to avoid invasion or aggression on the property. The only conclusion that can, therefore, be drawn on the basis of cumulative reading of facts, evidence and the related law is that appellants were acting within the permissible limits of their rights of private defence of body when they caused the death of Mohan by committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
36. Section 96 of IPC lays down the elementary rule of criminal jurisprudence, which says "nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of right of private defence." In the case of Bishna v. State of West Bengal, (2005) 12 SCC 657, the Apex Court discussed the nuances of said principle and held:
"In a large number of cases, this court, however, has laid down the law that a person who is apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales on the spur of moment and in the heat of circumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm the assailants, who were armed with weapons. In moments of excitement and disturbed equilibrium, it is often difficult to expect the parties to preserve composure and use exactly only so much Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 22-05-2025 17:57:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24322 19 CRA-2287-2007 force in retaliation to commensurate with the danger apprehended to him where assault is imminent by use of force."
37. Here, we have already discussed that only one substantial injury was caused to the deceased despite the fact that he was lying on the ground and appellants were armed with weapons. The force used by them was definitely in proportion to ward off unlawful imminent threat. Accordingly, Section 96 of IPC is attracted in absolute to the facts of the case and the act of appellants of causing death of Mohan and causing simple injuries to Raghuvir cannot be classified as any offence. As the appellants deserve to be acquitted in this case, we set aside the impugned judgment and acquit them of the charges of Sections 302 and 323/34 of IPC. All the appellants are already on bail. Their bail-bonds stand discharged.
38. The fine amount deposited by appellants, if any, be refunded to them.
39. The direction given by the trial court regarding disposal of property shall be complied with .
40. Let a copy of this judgment along with its record be send to the trial court for information and necessary compliance.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ps
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 22-05-2025
17:57:59