Naveen Chandra

Vs
State of Uttranchal
[Appeal (crl.) 1224 of 2006]

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

PROVISIONS OF IPC
INVOLVED :
SECTION 96 IPC
SECTION 100 IPC
SECTION 300 IPC
SECTION 302 IPC
SECTION 304 IPC

INDIAN PENAL CODE

 CHARACTERS
Nanda Ballabh Ganesh Dutta(brother of
(Accused no.1) Nanda Ballabh
(Deceased)

Janki Devi(his wife

Kamala devi Naveen Chandr (Deceased)
(Accused no.2 (Accused no.3)
(Wife of Sandeep(his son
Nanda Ballabh)
(Deceased)

Manish(his other son

(PW3)

FACTS OF THE CASE

• Nanda Ballabh and Ganesh Dutt were two brothers.

• They were residents of the Village Baira Majhara, Tehsil Kapkot, District
Bageshwar.

• Their houses were adjacent to each other.

• Relationships between the two brothers were strained on account of family

matters.

• On the fateful day i.e. on 2.6.2001, there was an altercation between Nanda
Ballabh & his family with Ganesh Dutt and his family during the day time.

• In which Ganesh Dutta received an injury to his head.

• Conciliation was arranged through a panchayat at the instance of Nanda

Ballabh.

• Nanda Ballabh, had sought the intervention of Bhupal Dutta and others
on the ground that his brother Ganesh Dutta was continuously troubling
him and continuously hurling abuses.

• Bhupal Dutta, therefore, went along with some others to the house of
Nanda Ballabh where 7 or 8 other persons were already present. This was
at about 5.00 p.m.

• Ganesh Dutt was called by Bhupal Dutt, one Bishan Dutt and Govind
Ballabh.

• They found that Ganesh Dutt already had an injury on his head, yet he
came along with them to the courtyard in between the houses of the
brothers.

• On being asked as to what the dispute between the two brothers was
about, Ganesh Dutt allegedly lost his temper and started abusing Nanda
Ballabh.

• Thereafter, the persons, who were there, took him back to his house.

• However, Ganesh Dutt, again came back and held the hand of his sister
in law, Kamala Devi.

• After this, there was an altercation between the brothers.

• In the meantime, Naveen Chandra rushed and injured Ganesh Dutt on

his head by a weapon called "Khukri".

• Smt. Janki Devi w/o Ganesh Dutt, also came there praying to spare
Ganesh Dutt, but she was also attacked by the Naveeen Chandra on her
face and head.

• Though the persons present requested Naveen Chandra to spare the

others, he ran up to the house of Ganesh Dutt.

• Where Ganesh Dutt's son Sandeep Dutt, & Manish Kumar were present.

• Sandeep Dutt took to his heels while the other son Manish hid himself.

• Ganesh Dutt died on the spot while his wife Smt. Janki Devi and son
Sandeep were seriously injured.

• The Gram Pradhan was called and the injured were kept in the Varanda
of Ganesh Dutt's house, but they also died during the same night.

Order of Session Court

• All the three accused were charged for an offence under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC.

• On the allegation that on 2.6.2001, the three accused persons in

furtherance of their common intention, had committed murder of Ganesh
Dutt, Smt. Janki Devi w/o Ganesh Dutt and Sandeep s/o Ganesh Dutt

 Order of High Court

• High Court directed acquittal of accused Smt. Kamla Devi and accused Sh.
Nanda Ballabh and the death sentence was converted to life imprisonment.

• The High Court did not accept the stand of the appellant that the attack, if
any made, was on account of grave and sudden provocation and/or that it
took place in course of sudden quarrel and/or in exercise of right of private
defence, and therefore there was no offence committed and trial court had
erroneously held that Section 302 IPC was attracted. The High Court did
not accept plea and confirmed the view expressed by the trial court.

• It however directed acquittal of two of the accused persons.

Supreme Court decision:

• Considering the background facts as highlighted above when tested in
the backdrop of the legal principles noted supra the inevitable conclusion
is that though the accused person was exercising right of private defence,
but had exceeded the same by continuing the attacks after the threat to
live had ceased.

• Therefore, this appears to be a case where Section 304 Part I would be

the applicable provision. The conviction is altered accordingly. Ten years
custodial sentence would meet the ends of justice.

 Recent Case laws:

Brij Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 August, 2016
• Facts of the case:

• The appellant–Brij Lal and Mohan Lal - PW-15 were both employed in the
Irrigation Department of the State Government.

• The appellant–Brij Lal allegedly used to hurl abuses at Mohan Lal under the
influence of liquor. Some others, including Kashi Ram, co-accused, used to side
with the Brij Lal, in his misbehaviour with Mohan Lal. In order to settle the
dispute amicably Mohan Lal called a “panchayat” (council).

• The endeavour of Mohan Lal, through the panchayat, proved unsuccessful.

• Mohan Lal – PW-15 quit his government accommodation, and took up rental
accommodation in the house of Mohan Ram.

• On 30.9.1983 at around 9 p.m., at the house of Mohan Ram Brij Lal and the
co-accused – Kashi Ram hurled abuses at Mohan Ram who was sitting
outside, in front of his house.

• They asked Mohan Ram, to call out Mohan Lal, as they wanted to kill him.
He had requested the Brij Lal and Kashi Ram, not to create any trouble at
his house. Mohan Lal having heard them hurling abuses, and also,
threatening to kill him, scaled the boundary wall of the premises, and hid in
the flour mill of Milkha Singh, located in close vicinity of the house of
Mohan Ram.

• Mohan Ram realised that the accused and the co- accused were in
possession of pistols, Hearing the altercation neighbours came to the place
of occurrence. They too requested them to go away.

• Under the pressure of the neighbours they moved towards the front of the
house of Sultan Bhat, located in front of the house of Mohan Ram.

• Kashi Ram, & Brij Lal fired at the gathering. Om Prakash and Sultan
Bhat received bullet injuries from the shots fired by Brij Lal. Om Prakash
died on the spot. Sultan Bhat was rendered unconscious. He was removed
to hospital, where he died on the following day. Bullet from Kashi Ram’s
gun hit Munni Devi (a woman), who also died on the spot. Labh Singh
and Sheria (a 5 year old boy) were also injured. The report of the above
incident was lodged by Mohan Ram – PW-1, on 1.10.1983

• The appellant – Brij Lal was however, arrested on 10.10.1983. The co-
accused – Kashi Ram was successful in evading his arrest. After
investigation, the appellant – Brij Lal was charged under Sections 302,
307 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sri
Ganganagar. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of
Session, which framed charges against the appellant – Brij Lal, under the
provisions referred to hereinabove.

• The accused appellant – Brij Lal, pleaded innocence. He sought recourse

to the plea of private defence, under the second exception under Section
300 of the IPC.

• The Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, acquitted the appellant-Brij Lal by

accepting the plea of self- defence raised by him by invoking the second
exception under Section 300, IPC.

• Dissatisfied with the above judgment the State of Rajasthan appealed in

the high court. The High Court rendered the impugned judgment on
17.11.2009, whereby the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan was
accepted. The judgment rendered by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar
dated 22.1.1985, acquitting the appellant-Brij Lal, was set aside. The
appellant-Brij Lal was found guilty of having committed the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Keeping in mind the fact, that
the occurrence had taken place in 1983, the High Court awarded the
sentence of life imprisonment to the appellant-Brij Lal. It also imposed a
fine of Rs.1,000.

The appellant has approached the Supreme Court, to assail the impugned
judgment, rendered by the High Court dated 17.11.2009.

 Contention raised: whether there is evidence on the record of this case, to

substantiate the plea of self-defence?

Supreme Court Judgement

• keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
view, that no benefit can be derived by the appellant on the legal position
expressed by this Court, with reference to the plea of self- defence. Herein,
there is no evidence to demonstrate, that the accused- appellant – Brij Lal
and the co-accused – Kashi Ram were actually attacked, and it was as a
matter of self-defence that they fired at the crowd, with their pistols.
• We are of the considered view, that the accused-appellant – Brij Lal was
guilty of having committed the offence under Section 302 of the IPC,
There is absolutely no question of extending the benefit of any doubt to the
accused-appellant – Brij Lal, in the present case.
• For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this appeal and the
same is, accordingly, dismissed.

 Sukumaran vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police on 7

March, 201

Facts of the case:

On 05.06.1988 at around 6.30 a.m., the appellant (Sukumaran)while on duty
was going in his official jeep along with driver of his Jeep to Pennagaram
Main Road from Kattampatti Road. They saw a lorry coming in the
Kattampatty road. They signaled the lorry to stop. Driver of the lorry turned
the lorry to left. Engine of the lorry stopped, the appellant started to move
towards the lorry. Persons in the lorry got down and started attacking them
with stones. Glass pane of the lorry was broken. Immediately, the persons in
lorry shouted that “you shoot them”. Then one of the person has taken out a
gun. Sukumaran started early and fired a gun shot one round in self defense.
The person dropped the gun and fell down. Thereafter, Sukumaran
apprehended other two persons 1. John Basha and 2. Ganesan with 64 billets
of sandal woods weighing 276 KG and also one SBML Gun. When the
appellant went to see the above mentioned driver he found him dead due gun
shot wounds.
9

 The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant (Sukumaran) for

the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 203 IPC, Section 36A and
E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and Section 3 read with Section 25( B)(a)
of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a
fine of Rs.2000/.

• The appellant filed criminal appeal in the High Court of Judicature at

Madras.

The High Court, altered the sentence from Section 302 to Section 304
Par II IPC and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a
fine amount of Rs.2000

• This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Madras.

• Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

t­

/­

1­
 Supreme Court Judgement:
• Having regard to the manner in which the incident occurred, the appellant,
in our view, was entitled to exercise his right of private defence against the
deceased party on the basis of the factual scenario, the appellant had
reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt
would be caused to him or to his driver ( 2).
• The High Court, failed to appreciate that firstly, the appellant had every
reason to believe that due to suspicious moment of the deceased party in
the forest, they were trying to smuggle the sandal wood from the forest.
Secondly, the deceased party was aggressor because, they first pelted the
stones and damaged the appellant’s vehicle shouting “fire them”. Thirdly,
the appellant’s duty was to apprehend the culprits who were involved in
the activity of smuggling sandalwoods and at the same time to protect
himself and his driver in case of any eventuality arising while
apprehending the culprits.
• The appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is
set aside. As a consequence, the appellant is acquitted from all the
charges.

A­