Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

III. Submissions on behalf of the Appellants :

Mr.Tejas Barot, the learned advocate appearing for the accused appellants, submitted that the trial Court committed a serious error in holding Popatbhai Mohanbhai (A1) guilty of the offence of murder simpliciter by relying on the evidence of the eye-witnesses to the incident. Mr.Barot submitted that the trial Court also committed a serious error in finding the accused nos.4 and 6 guilty of the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr.Barot submitted that the trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the defence of the accused no.1 Popatbhai Mohanbhai as reflected from his further statement in writing Exh.158. Mr.Barot submitted that the evidence on record would indicate that cross cases were filed. Mr.Barot laid must stress on the fact that Mohanbhai Dabhi (Harijan) (A7), father of Popatbhai Mohanbhai (A1), had sustained a serious injury on his head suggestive of the fact that a free fight had ensued between the prosecution witnesses and the accused persons. In such circumstances, according to Mr.Barot, it was not unreasonable on the part of Popatbhai Mohanbhai (A1) in protecting the life of his father R/CR.A/1654/2008 CAV JUDGEMENT when he felt that if he would not intervene then probably Fulabhai, the deceased, would have hit a second blow on the body of Mohanbhai Dabhi (Harijan). Mr.Barot prays that in such circumstances, Popatbhai Mohanbhai (A1) deserves to be given the benefit of Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code, and assuming for the moment that Popatbhai Mohanbhai (A1) exceeded in the right of private defence by inflicting a fatal injury on the head of the deceased, even then also the case would fall within the Exception 2 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.