Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Bhagwan Tana Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 October, 1973
27. It is true that the eye witnesses have not explained the injuries found on the person of the three appellants, but it has no significant bearing. Their evidence cannot be dismissed straightway simply because they do not explain the injuries on the person of the accused. It has been repeatedly pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown over-board simply on account of the failure of the prosecution witnesses to explain the injuries on the person of the accused. Reference may be made to Bankey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Bhagwan Tana Patil v. State of Maharashtra . There is, thus, no universal rule that merely because some injuries are found on the person of the accused, presumption of the exercise of the right of private defence at once springs up. There is no invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that there were some injuries on the person of the accused, the inference should be that the complainant party was the aggressor and the plea of private defence stands established. The presence of injuries on the person of the accused is only a circumstance to be taken into consideration. If the facts and circumstances show that the accused party was the aggressor, the mere presence of injuries on some of the accused does not show that they acted in self-defence. In order to find out whether the right of private defence is available to the accused, the entire incidence must be examined with care and viewed in its proper setting. One has to consider all the surrounding circumstances in which the incident had taken place. A plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and speculations. There must be material on record to establish the circumstances which necessitated the exercise of such right. The right of private defence should not be assumed simply because some trivial injuries are found on the person of the accused.
Bankey Lal And Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 4 February, 1971
27. It is true that the eye witnesses have not explained the injuries found on the person of the three appellants, but it has no significant bearing. Their evidence cannot be dismissed straightway simply because they do not explain the injuries on the person of the accused. It has been repeatedly pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown over-board simply on account of the failure of the prosecution witnesses to explain the injuries on the person of the accused. Reference may be made to Bankey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Bhagwan Tana Patil v. State of Maharashtra . There is, thus, no universal rule that merely because some injuries are found on the person of the accused, presumption of the exercise of the right of private defence at once springs up. There is no invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that there were some injuries on the person of the accused, the inference should be that the complainant party was the aggressor and the plea of private defence stands established. The presence of injuries on the person of the accused is only a circumstance to be taken into consideration. If the facts and circumstances show that the accused party was the aggressor, the mere presence of injuries on some of the accused does not show that they acted in self-defence. In order to find out whether the right of private defence is available to the accused, the entire incidence must be examined with care and viewed in its proper setting. One has to consider all the surrounding circumstances in which the incident had taken place. A plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and speculations. There must be material on record to establish the circumstances which necessitated the exercise of such right. The right of private defence should not be assumed simply because some trivial injuries are found on the person of the accused.
1