MAHAVIR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant (Mahavir Singh) as well as his brother Jogender Singh @ Pappu and his mother Mallo Devi were accused for having allegedly committed the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC in respect of Virender and the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC in re-spect of Balbir Singh (PW-2) and Ranbir Singh (PW-3). The Appellant was also accused of having committed the offence punishable under Sec-tion 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Insofar as Mallo Devi is concerned, she passed away prior to the framing of charges. Jogender @ Pappu was ac-quitted of all charges by the trial court. However, by virtue of the im-pugned judgment and / or order dated 29.07.1997, the present Appellant -

(2.) According to the prosecution, there was enmity between Mahavir Singh, Jogender Singh and Mallo Devi on the one side and the deceased Virender and his family on the other. This, according to the prosecution, was the result of an incident which took place about 8-9 months prior to the events leading to the death of the deceased Virender on 07.12.1985. It is alleged that, at that point of time, i.e., 8-9 months prior to 07.12.1985, PW-6 [Ram Chander-brother of deceased Virender] had taken away Mahavir's sister, who returned after 3-4 days. However, that matter was resolved. Despite that, the enmity between the two families remained. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 06.12.1985, i.e., one day prior to the date of occurrence, the accused persons had threatened the family of the deceased that they would settle scores with the family members one by one. There were some altercation and it is al-leged that in the course of that altercation, Jogender @ Pappu had hit the deceased's uncle Ram Kumar [PW-1] with a brick. The parties reached the police station and the matter was compromised. However, when they were returning from the police station, the accused again remarked that they would not rest till they took revenge. It is further the case of the prosecution that on the next day, i.e., on 07.12.1985, at about 12.00 noon, when Virender went to untie his buffaloes tethered near the railing of the park, Jogender @ Pappu and Mahavir Singh as also their mother Mallo Devi, who was standing nearby, came there and started abusing him. It is alleged that Jogender @ Pappu and Mahavir Singh were armed with knives and they both pounced upon Virender saying that he would be finished on that day itself and started giving knife blows to him. When he started to run towards his house in order to save himself, it is alleged that Mallo Devi exhorted both her sons that Virender should be killed on that day itself and she also ran after Virender. It is further al-leged that they caught hold of the deceased Virender and started giving him blows. In order to save Virender, PW-3 (Ranbir Singh) and his fa-ther, PW-2 (Balbir Singh) gave danda blows to the accused persons. However, it is further alleged that the accused gave knife blows to them and that in their self-defence PW-2 and PW-3 as well as Virender gave danda blows to Mallo Devi. It is alleged that in the meantime, the uncle of the deceased [Ram Kumar (PW-1)] also reached the spot. Virender did not survive the injuries and succumbed to them on the spot.

(3.) On the other hand, it is the specific plea taken by the learned Counsel for the Appellant from the very beginning that he acted in exercise of his right of private defence and, therefore, he cannot be said to have commit-ted any offence. In answer to question No. 21, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the case of private defence is clearly set up by the ap pellant in the following words: