IPC PROJECT

CASE STUDY ON:

GIRISH SAIKIA

VS

STATE OF ASSAM

SUBMITTED TO: Ms. MANEESHA MISHRA

SUBMITTED BY: NACHIKETA DAS

ROLL NO. 1882059

COURSE- BBA LLB

SECTION- “A”
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAWAHATI

GIRISH SAIKIA (APPLLEANT)

Vs

STATE OF ASSAM (RESPONDENT)

INTRODUCTION

In the case of Girish Saikia Vs State Of Assam, the appellant Shri Girish Saikia seeks to
challenge the judgement dated 5-5-88 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur
in Sessions Case No. 147(S)/85 convicting the appellant under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C and
sentencing him thereunder to suffer R.I. for 10 years.

BENCH— S Phukan, S Roy

THE LAW (PROVISIONS) WHICH HAS BEEN USED IN THIS

LANDMARK CASE ARE:

1) Section 80 of IPC -Accident in doing a lawful act- Nothing is an offence which is

done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in
the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and
caution.

2) Section 106 of IPC- Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is
risk of harm to innocent person- If in the exercise of the right of private defence
against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be
so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an
innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk.
Illustration A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He cannot effectually
exercise his right of private defence without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire
without risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no
offence if by so firing he harms any of the children.

3) Section 302 0f IPC- Punishment for murder- Whoever commits murder shall be
punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
FACT

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 14-5-82 one Shri Lila Kanta Bora (P.W. 1) lodged a
complaint at Chatia Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on 14-5-82 one Shri Gayan Bora
and Shri Jiten Bora came and reported him that the appellant had assaulted his father (since
deceased) and inflicted some injury. On receipt of the said information, P.W. 1 and 10/12
other villagers, including the persons mentioned therein, went to the house of the appellant
and upon reaching there found that the deceased was lying on a bed and bleeding from his
head. It was further stated in the said complaint that they found injury on the head of the
deceased. Within about 10 minutes of the arrival of the P.W. 1 and other villagers in the
house of the appellant, deceased succumbed to his injury. Thereafter being asked by P.W. 1
and other villagers as to how the incident occurred, the appellant informed them that in the
previous night of 13-5-82 at about 11 p.m. he had an altercation with his father over some
domestic matter and that the appellant struck his father (since deceased) on the head with a
piece of bamboo. 1

On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered at the said police station and after
completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under
Section 302, IPC. In due course of time the case was committed to the Court of Sessions
Judge. The Sessions Judge on perusal of the material on records, framed charge under Section
302, IPC against the appellant to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. In course of the trial,
prosecution examined seven witnesses and defence examined none. On conclusion of the
trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as already stated.

Mr. P. K. Tewari, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that no eye-witness was examined in this
case. The impugned judgement is entirely based on confession made by the appellant which
was recorded by the judicial Magistrate and some extra judicial confession stated to have
been made by the appellant to some of the witnesses viz., P.Ws. 1, 4 and 6. Apart from this,
there is absolutely no evidence on record to implicate the appellant with this case.

Mr. Tewari has drawn our attention to the confession of the appellant recorded by the
Magistrate (P.W. 2) under Section 164, Cr. P. C. In the confession appellant inter alia, stated
that when in the night of occurrence he was asleep, his younger brother Purna Kanta Saikia

1
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115713
(not examined as witness in this case) called him and as soon as the appellant woke up, his
throat was strangulated by the said Purna Kanta and the appellant was also punched by Purna
Kanta. Then the appellant and Purna Kanta got involved in a scuffle. He further stated in his
confession that as wife of the appellant failed to separate the two scuffling brothers, she
raised alarm calling for help of the neighbours. But none came forward. The two brothers,
while scuffling, rolled out of the room and then the appellant somehow could lay his hand on
a piece of bamboo and tried to strike his brother with the said piece of bamboo. But suddenly
his father (since deceased) arrived there and intervened. The blow was actually aimed to
strike the brother of the appellant but accidentaly it fell on the head of the deceased. He
further stated that he never intended to strike or do any harm to his father. As a result of this,
father of the appellant got an injury to which he ultimately succumbed in the next morning.
The appellant further stated that he did not give more than one blow with the said piece of
bamboo.

Mr. Tewari also took us through the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6. These witnesses
gave evidence in respect of extra judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant
before the learned trial Court that on being asked by him and others appellant told them that
during the previous night there was an altercation between him and his father and in course of
the said altercation the appellant struck his father with a piece of bamboo. It further appears
from the evidence of P.W..1 that there was some dispute between the appellant and his
younger brother over their respective share of the paternal property.

ISSUE

1) whether aforesaid act of the appellant as stated by him in his judicial confession has
amounted to an offence?

JUDGEMENT

Now, from the judicial confession of the appellant it appears that it was almost midnight
when appellant was sleep with his wife and at that time his own younger brother, namely,
Purna Kanta Saikia entered his room and attacked the appellant. Said younger brother further
throttled the throat of the appellant. As a result there was scuffling between the two and
appellant's wife, seeing the life of her husband to be in imminent danger, raised alarm for
help of the neighbours. But none came forward to their rescue. Two brothers, while scuffling,
rolled out of the room. In a situation like this, appellant surely apprehended that his death
would otherwise be the consequence of such assault. Under these circumstances, when the
appellant was apprehending his death to be imminent, his right of private defence of the body
extended to the voluntary causing of death to his aggressor. Section 100, I.P.C. has given him
that right. It is a right which is recognised in all civilised countries. The right of private
defence serves social purposes in discouraging prospective criminals and inculcating spirit of
courage and, manliness in the citizen of the country. It also discourages cowardice. Law does
not expect the citizen to meekly and cowardly flee away in face of danger to their life, body
and property. Rather it expects the citizen to resist such aggression manfully and even to
cause death of the aggressor in certain circumstances. Appellant was clearly put in such
circumstances and accordingly, in exercise of his lawful right in a lawful manner and by
lawful means, tried to hit his younger brother with a piece of bamboo. In such a situation,
appellant could not be expected to apprehend that in the meantime his old father would come
and intervene in the matter. A man facing such an imminent danger to his life, and that too in
a dark night, cannot be expected to exercise greater care and caution. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, we cannot say that the appellant was acting with any criminal
intention or knowledge. Therefore, without any hesitation in our mind we hold that the blow
dealt by the appellant with a bamboo, which was aimed at his younger brother, fell on the
head of the deceased by accident and misfortune. So, the act of the appellant is fully protected
by Section 80, I.P.C. and as such he has committed no offence.

The appellant is not only protected by Section 80, I.P.C, he is protected also by Section 106,
I.P.C, Section 106, I.P.C.

When the villagers came to the house of the appellant in the next morning, they found that
the deceased was till then alive and was lying on a cot and the appellant was nursing him as a
son is expected to do to his father in the true tradition of the Indian Society. From this
evidence, we are doubly satisfied that the appellant had absolutely no intention to harm his
father. But as the misfortune would have it, deceased ultimately succumbed to his injury.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in our mind
to hold that the appellant has not committed any offence under any provision of penal law of
the land.
Appellant was convicted way back in 1988, and since then he is in jail without any break
whatsoever. This appeal was filed way back in 1988. Yet we could not dispose of his appeal
for these long 5 years nor could grant him bail, since no application for bail was filed and we
cannot grant bail on our own. Appellant has already suffered incarceration for long 5 years.
This is virtually the major part of the punishment imposed upon the appellant. We do not
know what has happened to his wife and children, if he had any. Though we have already
held that the appellant has not committed any offence whatsoever, yet this possibly cannot
wash out the social stigma from which the appellant has to suffer throughout his whole life
that he is killer of his own father. We have nothing to offer by way of consolation to this
wretched man. We are equally unable to compensate the appellant for these sufferings and
ordeal through which he had to pass for these long 5 years because of this most unjust
conviction and sentence, except to express our deep anguish and shock.

Appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside and we direct that the
appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith.

CASE ANALYSIS

In this case, section 80 and section 106 of Indian Penal Code seem to be highly relevant.
Accident under section 80 talks about accident as a general exception and which can lead to
avoidance of criminal punishment and liability if established fully before a court of law. Law
does not Intend to punish a man of the things over which he could possibly have no control
over. This implies that a person when does not intend and cannot even contemplate
occurrence of a certain course of events, cannot be held responsible for the happening of that
event.

From this case , it is thus clear that nothing is an offence which is done by accident or
misfortune and without any criminal intention or knowledge in doing of a lawful act in a
lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution. So, in order to attract the
protection under Section 80, aforesaid circumstances must be shown to have existed at the
time of the incident.

In which misfortunes are similar to accidents but with the only difference that accidents result
in harm to others but misfortune may also result in harm to the doer. And criminal intention
or knowledge as reflected in the second constituent of crime under criminal law i.e "Mensrea"
is one of the vital part which is necessary to make an individual liable for his acts. Intention is
when the accused brings about the very result which it was his purpose to bring about, he is
said to have acted intentionally.2

It is important that the act which was being done was lawful, in a lawful manner and by
lawful means and also With proper care and caution Act done without any regard to proper
care and caution also come within the purview of mensrea as they come under the concept of
negative mensrea. Offences such as criminal negligence have this negative mens rea imbibed
in them. In these cases a person does an act with total disregard to the consequences which
may ensue from such carelessness.

Under Section 106 of IPC, it is cleared in this case that if in the exercise of the right of
private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the
defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without the risk of harm
to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk. 3

Appellant's case is much better situated here. After all in the instant case the appellant in the
exercise of his right of private defence did not deliberately run the risk of harming his
innocent father because he did not know at all that his father would suddenly intervene at that
particular moment when he tried to deal a blow on the head of his brother. After he released
the said blow, appellant had no means to withdraw the same to avoid any injury to his father.
In these circumstances appellant could perhaps realise intervention of his father only after the
blow fell on the head of his father instead of falling on his initial target, namely, his younger
brother. Under Section 106, I.P.C., in similar circumstances, a defender is protected when he
exercises his right of private defence even after knowing that such exercise may even harm
an innocent person. In the instant case, appellant had no means to know that when he was
acting in self-defence, it was likely to harm his father. Therefore, in the circumstances of the
case, it is apparent that the case of the appellant was much better situated than those cases
covered by Section 106, I.P.C

2
www ligilquist com
3
K I Vidhute , PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law,(14th ed. 2019).