STATE Vs. SATISH SANGMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Garo Hills District under Rule 16 of the Rules framed for the administration of justice in the Garo Hills in a case in which one Satish Sangma was convicted by him Under Section 304, I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for 7 years. The case has come before us for confirmation.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution was that on 5 -12 -1950, the deceased Mingran Morale who was the employer of the accused, suspected the latter of theft of some jute from his house. That day, 6 -12 -1950, the accused had gone to attend Gorobadha Hat. On his return from the Bazar in the evening, the accused went to the house of one Thangan Sangma at about 8 P. M. Thangan Sang -ma was a neighbour of the deceased. As the accused was warming himself by the fire in the house of Thangan Sangma, the deceased appeared in an angry mood, abused the accused saying 'dog, ass' and accused him of the theft of his jute. Not content with abusing the accused, the deceased took up a bamboo from a heap of bamboo faggots lying there and dealt 2 blows on the back of the accused and continued to abuse him. The accused protested and warned the deceased that if he struck him another blow there would be trouble. The deceased, however, took no notice of the accused's protests and maintaining his angry attitude, dealt a third blow to the accused who took up a bamboo faggot and dealt 2 blows on the head of the deceased. On receiving the injuries, the deceased fell to the ground and did not regain consciousness till his death which occurred on 8 -12 -1950. In due course a report of the offence was made to the D. C. under whose orders a case under flection 304, I. P. C. was registered against the accused.

(3.) THE learned D. C. has stated in his Judgment that 'the deceased was in a furious mood, he abused and hit the accused, the accused all this time was silent and protested, but when the deceased began to strike him a third time, the accused took up a piece of fire -wood and hit the deceased on the head.' On these facts, there is no question of the applicability of Exception 1 or 4. The question of the applicability of exception 2 to Section 300, IPC arises only if the alleged offender exceeds the right of private -self -defence. Section 96, Penal Code is in these terms: 'Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.' Section 100, IPC subjects the right of private self -defence -to the restrictions mentioned in Section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the -assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions thereinafter enumerated, namely, such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death -will otherwise be the consequence of such assault; and secondly, - such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. The restrictions contained in Section 99, Penal Code except the one restricting the right to the use of no more violence there (than?) is necessary for the purpose of defence have no application to the facts of this case,