Decided on September 08,1980

STATE OF M.P. Appellant
Mankhan and anothers Respondents


Navkar, J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal against the order of acquittal, dated 31.7.1972, passed by the Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 1972 under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.)THE facts of the case are that accused persons Mankhan and Ramesh were charged under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code that on 4.4.1972 at village Barakheda, in furtherance of their common intention they attempted to commit murder of Ranjit Singh son of Umrao Singh.
The undisputed facts of the case are that Paijan Singh and Kamar Singh are sons of Ranjit Singh and Kerabai is his daughter. The Khalian of Sander Singh and accused Ramesh are near to each other. It is not disputed that Mankhan was examined for his injuries on 4 -4 -1972 and there were injuries on his head and left side of chin and left knee -joint. But the medical report shows that these injuries were simple in nature and were caused some 6 to 8 hours prior to his medical examination. It is also found that they were caused by blunt object.

(3.)THE prosecution story is that in the morning of the date of the incident Ranjit Singh along with his son Kamar Singh, took their cattle to the field for grazing. After staying with the cattle for some time, Ranjit Singh was returning home, leaving Kamar Singh with the cattle. When Ranjit Singh was passing by the side of the barn of Ramesh, the two respondents were seen there. Respondent Ramesh was saying that the cattle entered his field and caused damage to the field. He was also enquiring about the labour which is used in the month of April for cutting the crop. Hearing this, respondent Mankhan suggested that Ranjit Singh should be disposed of. There after, respondent Mankhan caught hold, of Ranjit Singh from the front side and respondent Ramesh, who was armed with 'Farsa'. The cries of Ranjit Singh attracted Gajraj Singh and Sander Singh and seeing them there, this respondents ran away. The prosecution alleges that Kerabai has also seen the incident and after seeing the incident, Kerabai called her brother Paijan Singh, who took injured Ranjit Singh to Vidisha and also reported the matter to the Police. There is a suggestion by the prosecution also that the weapon of offence was seized on the information given by respondent Ramesh. We may add here that the weapon of offence, even though it had blood on it, was never sent by the prosecution for chemical analysis for the opinion of the Serologist. Therefore, it cannot be said that the axe 'Farsa' was used in committing the alleged offence. The respondents have pleaded that they did not commit the alleged offence. Mankhan has further stated that at the relevant time, he was in the service of respondent Ramesh and Kamar Singh but his cattle were grazing and doing harm to the crops of respondent Ramesh. When he stopped the cattle from doing so and prevented them together to take them to the cattle -pound, Kamar Singh gave beating to him and as they grappled with each/other, the alleged injuries were sustained by Ranjit Singh. When Kamar Singh wanted to injure Mankhan respondent with 'Fafsa', Mankhan also had given two or three blows to him in his right Of private defence. Then, he came to Vidisha and reported the matter to the Police Station. He was also medically examined. The respondent Ramesh stated that at the time of the incident, he was not present at the place of occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge has found that from the cross -examination, it is clear that the respondent, are claiming right of private defence of person and property. Their submission before him was that they could not be held guilty under the said section.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.