1971 (2) TMI 126 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC.
2. Right of private defense.
3. Conviction under Sections 324 and 323 IPC.
4. Evidence and credibility of witnesses.
5. Abduction claim under Section 362 IPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC:
The appellant, Sohanlal, was originally convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court altered his conviction to Section 302 IPC simpliciter, maintaining the life imprisonment sentence. The appellant contended that there was no evidence proving he inflicted a fatal injury on the deceased, Jhanjan. The Supreme Court examined the testimonies of the eye witnesses (Makhan, Chunni Lal, Tota Ram, and Ram Lal), noting inconsistencies and the absence of evidence that Sohanlal delivered a lathi blow to the deceased's head. The Court found that the prosecution's evidence did not justify a conviction under Section 302 IPC.

2. Right of Private Defense:
The appellant argued that he acted in private defense to rescue his sister, Chameli, who was allegedly being abducted by Makhan and his companions. The Court noted that prima facie, a husband taking his wife does not constitute abduction. Chameli's testimony that she was taken forcibly lacked credibility, especially since she denied giving birth to a child, which was contradicted by medical evidence. The Court concluded that Chameli was not being abducted, thus negating the appellant's claim of exercising his right of private defense.

3. Conviction under Sections 324 and 323 IPC:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to maintain the convictions and sentences under Sections 324 and 323 read with 34 IPC. The High Court had confirmed that all three accused attacked Makhan, Chunni, and Jhanjan with the intention of causing bodily injury. The Court found no reason to disturb this finding.

4. Evidence and Credibility of Witnesses:
The Court scrutinized the testimonies of the eye witnesses and found inconsistencies. None of the witnesses testified that Sohanlal delivered a lathi blow to the deceased's head. The Court also noted that the blood-stained lathi found at Sohanlal's house could have come into contact with blood when he threw it down. The Court determined that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.

5. Abduction Claim under Section 362 IPC:
The appellant's defense included a claim that Makhan was abducting Chameli by deceitful means. The Court found this claim to lack validity, as Chameli's testimony did not inspire confidence and was contradicted by other evidence. The Court concluded that there was no abduction, thus negating the appellant's right to private defense.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC, acquitting the appellant of the murder charge. The appellant was instead found guilty under Section 325 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The convictions and sentences under Sections 324 and 323 read with 34 IPC were maintained, with all sentences to run concurrently. The appeal was partly allowed.