ISHAK Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by state against the acquittal of respondent Ishak from a charge under section 302 IPC recorded by the Sessions Judge Indore.

(2.) THE respondent is alleged to be a resident of village Narela, Police Station Ingoria in Ujjain District. It is alleged that he was a milk -vendor and was facing a prosecution for selling adulterated milk within the railway limits at Ujjain. His case was being tried by the Railway Magistrate at Indore. The relations of the respondent approached Shri Bansal Advocate P.W. 22 to apply for his bail and Shri Bansal got him released on bail and the date for hearing of that case was fixed on 1st May 1971. It is alleged that on this day Shri Bansal told Ishak that he would not appear as his fees had not been paid. Thereafter on 1st May 1971, Ishak appeared in the Court of the Railway Magistrate Indore without a counsel. His case was taken up at about 3 -0 P.M. but even before his case was taken up he approached the reader of the Court one Shri Pancholi P.W. 20, complaining that he was being threatened outside by some persons. Thereupon Shri Pancholi walked out to see if there were any persons outside the Court but found none. When the case was called out, the respondent repeated his apprehension before the Magistrate. He also said that he was not well. The learned Magistrate asked him whether he wanted his case to be taken up or not and on his suggestion that let the witness who had some be examined, the witness who was present was examined. After that the respondent again approached the Magistrate and said that he was afraid that he would be beaten. Thereupon the Magistrate (P.W. 19) asked constable Brijlal P.W. 15 happened to be in the Court -room to escort the respondent to the railway station or the bus -stand wherever he wanted to go. The constable came out of the Court -room with Ishak and according to him, he had hardly gone down the stairs of the Court -room when Ishak took off his shoes and ran away. The constable, however, did not see any person attempting to manhandle the respondent within a few moments the respondent disappeared on the street. The constable returned with Ishak's shoes and deposited them under an almirah in the Court -room. The shoes were later seized by the police. According to constable Brijlal, Ishak told him when they were going out of the Court -room that they were Bansal Advocate's men who were threatening him. According to the prosecution, after some time the respondent was seen running on the road coming from the Christian College towards the Purohit Lodge. He was drenched in mud from head to foot. It is alleged that he was followed by some persons who were shouting "Catch him". When he reached near the mouth of the 'Galiyara' leading to Purohit Lodge the persons who were following him surrounded him. In the meantime, the deceased Khemraj, who was a man from Delhi, came on a bicycle and he got down from the bicycle in front of the 'Galiyara', put the bicycle on the stand and turned towards the 'Galiyara' to enter the lodge where he was staying in Room No. 15. Thereupon the respondent gave a blow with a knife on the back of Khemraj and after giving him the blow ran towards the railway station. He was chased by people who shouted "Ishak has stabbed". He could not be caught and ran into the room of the Station Master Shankarlal P.W. 27, stood by his side and asked for help. Ishak was carrying the blood -stained knife in his hand and some railway police constables had seen him, running and entering the station master's room. They arrived inside the office of the Station Master, apprehended the respondent and seized the blood -stained knife.

(3.) ON trial, the learned Judge accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as regards the respondent having stabbed the deceased. The learned Judge also found on the basis of medical evidence that the stab wound had penetrated deep into the abdominal cavity, tearing the spleen and the diaphragram and had cut vital organs. The learned Judge found that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. But the learned Judge, giving advantage of Sections 106 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code, held that the respondent was entitled to the right of private defence and therefore acquitted him. This is an appeal filed by State against the order of acquittal.