9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 304, I.P.C. 2. Conviction under Section 323, I.P.C. 3. Jurisdiction of the third Judge under Section 429, Cr.P.C. 4. Interpretation of the term "case" under Section 429, Cr.P.C. 5. Right of private defense. Issue-Wise Analysis: 1. Conviction under Section 304, I.P.C. The appellants were initially convicted under Section 304, I.P.C., for causing the death of Bhajan Lal. The Division Bench disagreed on this conviction, with one Judge believing the appellants were guilty under Section 304, while the other believed they were guilty under Section 325, I.P.C. The case was referred to a third Judge, who opined that the appellants committed no offense as they acted in self-defense. The third Judge's opinion was binding, leading to the appellants' acquittal under Section 304, I.P.C. 2. Conviction under Section 323, I.P.C. The Division Bench agreed on the conviction under Section 323, I.P.C., for causing simple hurt to Mitthu. They recorded that this conviction and sentence should be maintained and excluded it from the third Judge's jurisdiction. However, the third Judge implied that the appellants should be acquitted of all charges, including under Section 323, I.P.C. The final judgment, influenced by the third Judge's opinion, acquitted the appellants of all charges. 3. Jurisdiction of the Third Judge under Section 429, Cr.P.C. Section 429, Cr.P.C., mandates that when Judges are equally divided in opinion, the case should be laid before another Judge, who will deliver his opinion, and the judgment shall follow such opinion. The third Judge is empowered to give his opinion on the matter referred to him and not on other questions. The third Judge's jurisdiction is limited to the case referred to him, and he cannot decide on matters where the original Judges had no disagreement. 4. Interpretation of the Term "Case" under Section 429, Cr.P.C. The term "case" under Section 429, Cr.P.C., was debated. The judgment clarified that "case" refers to the whole trial of the accused for the specific offense on which there was a disagreement. The third Judge must consider the entire case of the particular accused, not just the points of disagreement. The opinion of the third Judge is binding on the Division Bench, and the final judgment must follow this opinion. 5. Right of Private Defense The third Judge found that the appellants had the right of private defense. The initial attack was from Bhajan Lal, and the appellants had the right to defend themselves. The right of private defense continued against Mitthu even after Bhajan Lal fell. Therefore, the appellants could not be held guilty of any offense, including under Section 323, I.P.C. The final judgment acquitted the appellants based on the right of private defense. Conclusion: The final judgment acquitted the appellants of all charges, including under Sections 304 and 323, I.P.C., based on the third Judge's opinion that the appellants acted in self-defense. The interpretation of "case" under Section 429, Cr.P.C., and the jurisdiction of the third Judge were crucial in arriving at this decision. The right of private defense played a significant role in the acquittal.
|
