DHANANJAI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant herein was tried along with 12 others for an offence punishable u/S. 302, I.P.C. for causing the death of one Sheodan. The other accused were tried under Sections 302/149, I.P.C. The appellant was also tried for an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. for causing injuries to P.W. 2. The trial Court convicted the appellant u/S.302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Six other accused were convicted u / Ss. 302 / 149, 1. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellant was also convicted u/ S. 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years R.I. for causing the gun-shot injuries to P.W. 2. The remaining six accused were acquitted. All the convicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court. The High Court acquitted the six others but confirmed the convictions and sentences passed against the appellant. Hence the present appeals.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows. One Khazan filed a criminal case against Rambir, one of the acquitted accused, prior to the occurrence. In that case P.W. 1 Girendra Pal Singh and P.W. 2 Ishwari Singh were witnesses. P.W. 2 was already examined. The case was fixed for hearing four or five days after the occurrence in question. On 19-6-74 at about 7 or 7.30 p.m., P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the deceased with some others were sitting at the chaupal of P.W. 1. They heard some noise coming from the house of Girendra Pal Singh. The deceased and others went towards that house. There they found the appellant and one Nannua armed with guns and other accused armed with lathis. The accused asked Smt. Ganga Devi wife of Girendra Pal Singh's brother to call the male members of the family and they tried to beat Girendra Pal Singh who wielded his danda in self-defence. Then Rambir exhorted his son Dhananjai, the appellant to kill them whereupon Dhananjai fired five shots which hit the deceased and also P.W. 2. The deceased fell down and died. At the direction of Rambir the accused removed the body of the deceased. Girendra Pal Singh, P.W. 1 gave the F.I.R. The police arrived at the scene of occurrence, held the inquest over the dead body and sent the same for post-mortem. The Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, found four gun-shot injuries on the dead body. He also examined P.W. 2 on whom he found two gun-shot injuries. The accused pleaded not guilty. The appellant, however, pleaded that the accused Gopi was in the service of P.W. 1 but two or three days prior to the occurrence he started working at his house which was resented by P.W. 1 and he abused and hit Gopi who reported the matter to the appellant and went to the chaupal of Girendra Pal Singh and complained about his behaviour. Then P.W. 1 and his companions beat him with lathis and having received injuries he and his father Rambir went to the Police Station. The appellant was also examined and the Doctor found on him, a contusion on the fore-arm, an abrasion on the right elbow and a lacerated wound scalp deep above occipital prominence. The Doctor opined that all these injuries were simple. The High Court acquitted other accused giving them benefit of doubt. So far as the appellant is concerned, the High Court accepted his presence at the scene of occurrence as it was not in dispute. The High Court also considered the appellant's plea that he had right of self-defence but rejected the same and accordingly convicted him.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not explained the injuries on the appellant and since 12 accused are acquitted, the appellant cannot be convicted on the selfsame evidence and at any rate in view of the finding of the High Court that the appellant received injuries earlier to the death of the deceased, he must be given the benefit of the general exception of the right of private defence or at least in the alternative he can be convicted under S. 304, Part I, I.P.C.