http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LAEEQ

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/04/1999

BENCH: G.T.  NANAVATI, & S.P.  KURDUKAR.

JUDGMENT:

J_U_D_G_M,E_N_T NANAVATI.J

     The  State has filed this appeal as respondent  Laeeq, who  was  convicted  by  the trial  Court  for  the  offence punishable  under Section 304 IPC, has been acquitted by the High Court.

     Laeeq was tried along with three others for committing murder  of  Ashfaq  Hussain and causing  injuries  to  Mohd. Yaseen,  Ayub,  Chhotey and Nathu.  The trial Court did  not believe  the  evidence of the eye-witnesses as  regards  the genesis of the incident and gave benefit of doubt to accused Mohd.   Noor,  Qayum Abdul Qayaum and Arshad  and  acquitted them.   The role played by the respondent Laeeq was believed but  giving him benefit of exception (4) to Section 300  IPC convicted  him  under Section 304 IPC and sentenced  him  to suffer imprisonment for life.  Aggreived by the acquittal of the  other  three accused, State filed an appeal before  the High  Court  and aggreived by the order of  his  conviction, Laeeq  also filed an appeal before the High Court.  Both the appears  were  heard  together.  The  High  Court  dismissed State’s  appeal against acquittal and allowed the appeal  of the  respondent  Laeeq.   The State,  therefore,  filed  two special  leave  petitions  in  this Court,  out,  leave  was granted  only  against  acquittal of Laeeq and  the  special leave   petition  against  the   other  three  accused   was dismissed.   Thus)  Criminal Appeal No.  357 of 1989  really stood  dismissed because no leave was granted in that  case. Only Criminal Appeal No.  357A survives for consideration.

     The  High Court after reappreciating the evidence  has held  that  " The possibility of Laeeq Ahmad accused  having given  a knife blow to the deceassed and the injuries  found on the person of Mohammad Yasin (P.W.I), Chhotey (P.W.2) and Ayub  having  been  received  after  the  accused  had  been assaulted  with  dandas by him, Nathu, Chhotey  (P.W.2)  and Ashfaq Hussein deceased cannot be excluded." Thus, believing the  defence version that the respondent had caused the said injury  in  exercise of right of private defence,  the  High Court acquitted the respondent.

     What  is urged by the learned counsel for the State is that the High Court has failed to consider that in any case, the  respondent  had exceeded the said right as he  did  not have reasonable apprehension of death, or grievous hurt when he had inflicted the fatal blow on the deceased.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

     After going through the record we find that neither in cross  examination of the witnesses it was suggested nor  in his  statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.  the respondent had stated  that  he  had given the kinfe blow to  the  deceased while  he feared death or grievous injury from the  deceased or the persons who were with the deceased.  Before the trial Court  the plea raised on behalf of the respondent was  that all  the  accused had wielded sticks in self  defence.   The trial  Court  rightly  did  not accept the  version  of  the defence  as the injury which was found on the person of  the deceased  was  an incised wound possible by a sharp  cutting instrument.   The  High Court has thought it fit to  believe the version of the respondent, that the knife blow was given by  him  while  he  was   trying  to  defend  himself.   The respondent, however, has, not stated specifically under what circumstances  he gave the knife blow to the deceased.  Such a  vague plea cannot justify causing of death.  As  provided by  Section 100 I.P.C.  right of private defence extends  to voluntary causing of death of the assailant if the assuit is such as would reasonably cause an apprehension that death or grievous  hurt would otherwise be the consequence.  There is no material on record from which it is possible to draw such an  inference.   As stated earlier, the plea raised  by  the respondent  is vague and does not explain the  circumstances under  which he gave the fatal blow.  The material on record does  not  show  that the complainant side  was  armed  with weapons  other than sticks.  The material also does not show that  the deceased had aimed a stick blow at the  respondent or  any other person accompanying him when he had given  the knife  blow.  Even if the defence version as accepted by the High  Court 1s believed it only indicates that the  deceased and  the  persons along with him had started the assault  on the  respondent and his co-accused by wie1ding their  sticks but  it  does not further probablise causing of death  under reasonable  apprehension  of  death or grievous  hurt.   The required  justification  for causing death "in  exercise  of right  of self defence was neither pleaded specifically  nor the  material  on  record   probalises  the  same.   Without considering  this aspect the High Court gave the benefit  of the  exception and acquitted the respondent, Therefore,  the judgment  of  the  High  Court  and  the  acquittal  of  the respondent  deserve  to be set aside and it will have to  be held  that  the  respondent exceeded the  right  of  private defence  when he gave the fatal knife blow to the  deceased. Accordingly,  we hold him guilty for the offence  punishable under   Section  304  I.P.C.    Considering  the  facts  and circumstances  of this case we are of the view that ends  of justice  would  be  met if the respondent  is  sentenced  to suffer  rigorous imprisonment for five years for  committing the offence.

     In  the  result  this appeal is partly  allowed.   The judgment  of  the  High  Court  and  the  acquittal  of  the respondent  are  set aside and the respondent  is  convicted under  Section 304 I.P.C.  and sentenced to suffer  rigorous imprisonment  for five years.  The respondent is directed to surrender  to custody to serve out the remaining part of his sentence.