STATE OF M P Vs. MANGU ALIAS MANGILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State has filed the revision against certain directions issued by the Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial Case No. 166 of 1991.

(2.) Learned Sessions Judge tried four accused on charges under Ss. 302, 302 read with Sections 34, 307 and 307 read with S. 34 of the IPC and convicted first accused under S. 302, IPC and imposed sen tence of imprisonment for life on him and convicted third accused under S. 323, IPC and imposed sen tence of simple imprisonment of three months on him. Other accused were acquitted of all charges. Third accused was acquitted of other charges. Learned Sessions Judge further directed -

(3.) Learned Sessions Judge placed reliance on decision in British Indian General Insurance Com pany Limited v. Maya Banerjee (1986 ACJ 946). Learned Judge observed that human life has become very risky on account of increasing crime, acts of terrorism and motor vehicle accidents and noticed that under S. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, com pensation of Rs. 25,000.00 has to be paid to the dependants of the victims of accidents on the basis of 'no fault liability' and the Act also provides for scheme of compensation to victims in hit and run cases, but there is no similar provision made in the IPC or Cr. P.C. Every citizen is entitled to have his life and property protected by the State which has taken away right to retain fire-arms for self-defence except with the permission granted by the District Magistrate. Hence the responsibility of the State to safeguard life is onerous. Where life is taken on account of failure of the State to provide protection the State must assume responsibility in regard to the dependants of the victim. So also, according to the learned Judge, the State must assume some respon sibility in regard to the helpless dependants of the accused who is sentenced to undergo imprisonment where they have no means of subsistence.