STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAMADRAHIM HAJI NODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE now remains the question regarding the right of self-defence exercised by respondent No. 1. Now, in the instant case, as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the antecedents of the deceased are not good. The deceased had abducted the respondent No. 2 by force on two occasions in past and also attempted to sell her and was about to repeat the said act this time also as doubted by the wife of the deceased. It has also come in evidence that there was a social boycott of the deceased. Even complainant Abdulla Mammed has also not denied the suggestion that his uncle was a head strong crook with criminal nature. The fact that deceased had come to the house of the respondents and made attempt to abduct the respondent No. 2 in presence of her husband-the respondent No. 1 in broad daylight would go to show that the deceased wanted to fulfil the task attempted by him on two previous occasions at any cost. The fact that he dragged the respondent No. 2 upto a distance of about 72 ft. inspite of the fact that he received number of blows inflicted by respondent No. 1 would definitely suggest that the deceased was criminal minded and had come with a specific purpose of abducting the respondent No. 2 with the sole intention "Come what may ." Considering the attitude of the deceased we feel that the respondent No. 1 was quite justified in the acts of self-defence by means of blows using weapons like axe. It is too much to expect any husband to simply watch an incident where his wife is being taken away by somebody who is known for crime crooked-ness in broad daylight from his custody. In such a situation, normal conduct would be to get escape or release from the man by any possible means. One would not like to select weapons whether it be axe or stick. His immediate attempt would be get his dear one released from the clutches of the man even by using force. Under the circumstances, in the instant case, the husband is justified in using force, till his wife was released. In this view of the matter, he was well within his right of self-defence in exercising the aforesaid acts. In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1960 SC 67 held that the appellant in that case had a right of private defence of the body of his sister against the assault with the intention of abducting her by force and that right extending to causing of death. In that case, the appellant's sister was being abducted from his father's house by her husband and there was an assault on her and she was being compelled by force to go away from her father's place and the appellant protected his sister by inflicting knife injury to the deceased. Under the circumstances, it is not possible for us to accept the submission of Mr. Shelat that the respondent No. 1 exceeded the right of self-defence by inflicting as many as seventeen blows to the deceased. We are of the view that the right of self-defence extends till the damage is over. In the instant case, the respondent No. 1 continued inflicting blows till his wife was released when the deceased fell down on the ground. Thus, on going through the prosecution evidence as well as the reasons for acquittal given by the trial Court, we must at once say that the judgment is well considered enough for taking any exception to it. Mr. Shelat has not been able to dislodge any of the reasons for acquittal given by the trial Court. In this view of the matter, since we agree with the judgment and order of the trial Court, we do not deem it necessary either to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons for acquittal given by the trial Court. Suffice, it to say that Mr. Shelat has not been able to make out any case for our interference in this acquital appeal.