LALA RAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under S. 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with S. 2(a) of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970. The five appellants figured as A- 1 to A-4 and A- 11 in the trial Court. A-1 and A-3 are sons of A-2. A-2 and A-4 are real brothers.

(2.) Before the trial Court the prosecution case was that these five appellants along with nine others formed an unlawful assembly, on 22-11-71 with the common object of abducting Smt. Shanti. wife of A-1 and to cause the death of the deceased Amrit Lal. Among them A-1 and A-3 were armed with guns. It is alleged that A-1 shot at the deceased as a result of which he died on the spot. A-3 shot into the air. During the course of the same transaction A-4 is alleged to have caused an injury to one Harcharan, a prosecution witness. The plea of the accused was one of denial. They, however, pleaded that they had gone to fetch Smt. Shanti (D.W. 1 wife of A-1) not forcibly but on her own invitation and that A-1 and A-4 were attacked by deceased Amrit Lal and his party and, therefore, in scuffle the gun went off killing the deceased. They also took the plea that the act of A-1 even if believed would amount to exercise of the right of self defence. It must be noted that Smt. Shanti figured as defence witness and gave a version in support of the defence. The prosecution, however, relied on the evidence of other eye-witnesses. The trial Court accepted the prosecution evidence to a large extent. It, however, held that A-1 acted in exercise of the right of self-defence and he did not exceed the same. In that view of the matter it acquitted all the accused. The State preferred an appeal. In the appeal a Division Bench of the High Court accepted the prosecution case that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object A-1 shot at the deceased and A-4 caused an injury to Harcharan; A-3 shot twice but did not cause any injury to anybody. The High Court further held that A-1 by firing second time, attempted to commit the murder of one Mukhtiyar Khan. The High Court held that the others did not share the common object and they were not the members of the unlawful assembly. In that view of the matter the High Court acquitted the other accused. The High Court convicted A-1, Lalaram under S. 302, I.P.C. simpliciter and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also under S. 307, I.P.C. to suffer five years R. I. A-2 Kamarlal is convicted under S. 302 read with S. 149, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. A-3 Panna Lal is convicted under S. 302 read with S. 149, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also under S. 307, I. P.C. to suffer five years R. I. A-4 Bharosi is convicted under S. 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to six months R.I. and also under S. 302 read with S. 149, I. P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. A-11 Mangilal is convicted under S. 302 read with S. 149, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that admittedly Smt. Shanti D. W. 1, who is the wife of A-1, was in the house of the deceased Amrit Lal who is no other than her brother and the only inference that can be drawn is that she was not forcibly taken away and, therefore, the Sessions Court was right in observing that the accused had a right to rescue her and when they were attacked by the deceased and others they had a right of private defence and they did not exceed the same. We are unable to agree so far as A-1 is concerned. The findings of both the Courts below are to the effect that he shot at the deceased Amrit Lal and caused his instantaneous death and again he also fired at the prosecution party but that did not cause any damage. So far as A-3 is concerned, both the Courts below have held that he fired two shots. The overt acts of the other accused namely A-2, A-4 and A-11 are also held to be proved.