CHEMMAYYA GOWDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant / accused has been charged for the offence punishable under S.302, IPC. Admitting the incident, he pleaded exercise of right of private defence. That was also found in his favour by the Court below. But the Court below was of the view that he exceeded that right and therefore had committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder to fall under S.304, Part I, IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

(2.) This conviction is assailed in this case contending that having found that he was exercising the right of private defence, the Court ought to have found that he did not exceed that right, as there were only three injuries on the deceased as disclosed in Ext. P1 post - mortem certificate issued by PW 1, the doctor who conducted autopsy. Threat on the accused by the deceased had been found by the Court below. That threat was using MO 4 iron rod. He was also injured as is revealed by Ext. P10 wound certificate issued by PW 11, the doctor who attended him in the hospital where he had been in impatient for about 9 days. In such circumstances, when he had faced an assault from the deceased with a deadly weapon like MO 4 iron rod, he should have the protection of 1st clause of or the secondly of S.100, IPC. He is not expected to modulate his actions in such a manner to apply only minimum force with a golden scale while exercising the right of private defence. This is a case where he did never exceed the right of private defence, especially when PW 3, the wife of the deceased, had deposed that the deceased had come to the paddy field where the accused was really engaged in agricultural operation with other workers.

(3.) It is contended by the public prosecutor that the injury on the leg of the deceased noted in Ext. P1 post - mortem certificate had been inflicted, as spoken to by the witnesses, after the deceased had fallen down due to the first beat on his head with the handle of the spade in the hands of the accused. Therefore any further injury inflicted on the deceased was in excess of the exercise of the right of private defence available to him. Therefore the conviction under S.304, Part I, IPC is perfectly justified and no interference is called for.