1974 (5) TMI 117 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and acquittal of Ganga Ram and Ram Swarup under Section 302 IPC.
2. Right of private defence claimed by Ram Swarup.
3. Evidence evaluation by the Sessions Court and the High Court.
4. Applicability of Section 105 of the Evidence Act.
5. Maintainability of the appeal by the State Government under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Acquittal of Ganga Ram and Ram Swarup under Section 302 IPC:
The Sessions Judge convicted Ram Swarup under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to death, while Ganga Ram was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court acquitted both Ganga Ram and Ram Swarup. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court's reasons for acquitting Ram Swarup were unsupportable and restored the Sessions Court's conviction under Section 302 IPC, reducing the death sentence to life imprisonment. The acquittal of Ganga Ram was confirmed due to lack of evidence of instigation.

2. Right of Private Defence Claimed by Ram Swarup:
The Sessions Court rejected Ram Swarup's claim of private defence, concluding that the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, however, accepted the defence version, stating that Ram Swarup had justification to fire his gun to save his father, Ganga Ram, from being assaulted with lathis. The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the right of private defence is a right of defence, not retribution, and cannot be used as a shield to justify an act of aggression. The Court found that Ram Swarup and Ganga Ram went to the market with a preconceived design to pick up a quarrel, negating the right of private defence.

3. Evidence Evaluation by the Sessions Court and the High Court:
The Sessions Court accepted the prosecution's evidence, finding the witnesses trustworthy. The High Court, however, was suspicious of the evidence, considering it to be biased due to the witnesses' relationships with the deceased. The Supreme Court found the High Court's cautious approach to be overly suspicious and held that the evidence was consistent and convincing. The Court emphasized that the High Court's rejection of the melon incident and its alternative trivialization led to an incorrect conclusion about the respondents' intentions.

4. Applicability of Section 105 of the Evidence Act:
The Supreme Court highlighted that under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Penal Code is upon the accused. The Court noted that the High Court's judgment did not reflect an awareness of this provision. The Court reiterated that the right of private defence must be proved by the accused and that the force used must bear a reasonable proportion to the injury to be averted.

5. Maintainability of the Appeal by the State Government under Article 136 of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court rejected the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Garg regarding the maintainability of the appeal by the State Government. The Court held that under Article 136(1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has wide discretion to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order. The Court recognized the locus standi of State Governments to file appeals in criminal matters, emphasizing their vital stake in the enforcement and execution of laws directed against the prevention and punishment of crimes.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal of Ram Swarup, restoring the Sessions Court's conviction under Section 302 IPC but reducing the death sentence to life imprisonment. The acquittal of Ganga Ram was confirmed due to lack of evidence of instigation. The Court found that the High Court's acceptance of the right of private defence was incorrect and that the prosecution's evidence was consistent and convincing. The Court also affirmed the State Government's locus standi to file the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.