Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

49. In the instant case also, the plea taken by the defence is that deceased tried to outrage modesty of Sunita Chandel. She raised alarm. Accused came down and gave beatings to the deceased. In this case, accused can be said to have exercised their right of private defence by giving beatings to the deceased person to save the modesty of Sunita Chandel.

50. A learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Bhadar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2000 Cr. LJ 1174 has held that the accused on hearing his widowed sister-in-law's cry for help rushed to her house with Gandasa, her house was found open by accused and injured was found grappling with her and .

trying to outrage her modesty, accused saved his sister-in-law from clutches of injured and inflicted Gandasa blow while injured was running away. Act of accused can be said to be in exercise of right of private defence and accused was entitled to acquittal. The learned Single Judge has held as under:

of
15. Accused appellant admitted even under Section 313, Cr.P.C.

thatatabout 10-11 P.M. his sister-in-law Mohra cried to save rt her. He rushed to her house and found that the door of her house was opened and appellant was grappling with her. The appellant assaulted on Nand Ram and inflicted gandasi blow which he had taken when going to the house of Mohra. Then Nand Ram ran away from where. Smt. Mohra was examined in defence by the appellant. She stated that she was asleep in the courtyard of her house. It has small boundary wall. At about 10- 11 P.M. Nand Ram grappled her body, she woke up and started crying. Then Bhadar Ram, whose house is adjacent, came armed with a gandasi, Nand Ram left her. He was chased by Bhadar Ram and two injuries were inflicted by Bhadar Ram on Nand Ram infront of her. She admitted that Nand Ram was a married person and it was submitted by the prosecution that Nand Ram, being a married man, could not have indulged in this activity. He is not right. Nand Ram as told by him as PW-4 is aged about 40 years. Mohra is a widow aged about 30-35 years and it was possible that Nand Ram could have gone there in order to outrage her modesty for attempt to commit rape. It is not always correct to say that a married man could not indulge in such activity. She stated that blood was found outside her house when police came in the morning. She stated that her father-in- law is a blind man and she told the story of her woe to the Sarpanch named as Girdhari. No report could be lodged because her father-in-law was a blind man and the Sarpanch did not help her. Ordinarily Mohra who is a widow lady would not involve her honour in order to save appellant in case defence was not true. The learned Sessions Judge did consider the .

.
16. Applying this principle itself in this case, I find that there was a real danger to the body of Mohra who at the dead hour of night was grappled by Nand Ram in order to outrage her modesty for committing rape. She is a widow lady, nobody to help as her father-in-law was a blind man. She came later on, made complaints to Sarpanch about the incident who did not pay any heed. It was appellant who after hearing her noise and of whose duty as her deceased husband's younger brother was to save her, came after hearing her hue and cry. He was a young boy of 23-24 years of age. He saved her from the clutches of Nand Ram and assaulted him with gandasi when he was rt running. It cannot be said that it was done in excess of right as a right of reprisal for punishment. Appellant saw Nand Ram grappling with his widow sister-in-law, was enraged because of grave and sudden provocation. He came prepared having a gandasi in his hand when he heard hue and cry of his sister-in-

law at the time of dead hour of night on his part. Had he a firearm with himself he could have come with a firearm and could have shot at Nand Ram seeing that Nand Ram was grappling with his widow sister-in-law at that dead hour of night. To say that it was not in a right exercised in defence then what else could be. Section 100 of IPC gives a right of private defence of the body to the extent of causing death when an assault is made with an intention of committing rape. Accused appellant had seen Nand Ram grappling with his sister-in-law and he has probabilised the defence. I am of the view that he had a right of private defence in assaulting Nand Ram. Reference may be made to Salikram v. State, (1990) 1 Crimes 630 (Madh Pra). In this case accused was entitled to right of private defence under Section 100 (thirdly) IPC and consequently entitled for acquittal.