SEKAR ALIAS RAJU SEKHARAN Vs. STATE OF REP
LAWS(SC)-2002-10-31
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
October 03,2002
SEKAR
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTATIVE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,TAMIL NADU
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
JAI DEV HARI SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]MUNSHI RAM VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. BAI FATIMA [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MOHAMMAD MUSHEER KHAN [REFERRED TO]
SALIM ZIA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER PAL JOLLY VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
KAMAL ALIAS KAMAL SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-4-32] [REFERRED TO]NARESH BHOI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-203] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2007-6-28] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-435] [REFERRED TO]
JAMES MARTIN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2003-12-146] [REFERRED TO]
SHOPAN SURESH SONAVANE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-11-79] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NIWAS AND BHANWARLAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
NARAIN SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2008-4-49] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH AHIRWAR VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-9-143] [REFERRED]
PRAKASH SUBBA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2017-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
MANIK HANMANT MOTE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
BALESHWAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-203] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH ALIAS RAKESH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2011-4-171] [REFERRED TO]
MANGU KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
BISHNA ALIAS BHISWADEB MAHATO VS. STATE OF W B [LAWS(SC)-2005-10-43] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. REMESH [LAWS(SC)-2004-11-100] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI PRAKASH PANDEY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-2-162] [REFERRED TO]
K K MANI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-708] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP CHAND VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIRAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2003-11-71] [REFERRED]
SALIM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2008-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
BABU LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-7-84] [REFERRED TO]
BUDDHI LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVANNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
BHERU LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-10-26] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2006-3-95] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2006-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
DAHYABHAI JAGMALBHAI HARIJAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-4-142] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK KASHYAP VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2018-3-462] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE RAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-307] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-302] [REFERRED TO]
SAYYAD MAGDUM JANNY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2002-12-85] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN SINGH VS. POONAM SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2003-9-100] [REFERRED]
V SUBRAMANI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2005-3-125] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVEER AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-9-120] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2015-4-61] [REFERRED TO]
AJAI PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-194] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SUBBA, S/O LATE SUK RAJ SUBBA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2017-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
Megh Nath VS. State [LAWS(UTN)-2005-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN CHANDRA VS. STATE OF UTTRANCHAL [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-120] [REFERRED TO]
HANUMANTAPPA BHIMAPPA DALAVANI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-183] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2008-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PYARE MISHRA VS. PREM SHANKER [LAWS(SC)-2008-8-83] [REFERRED TO]
RANVEER SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(SC)-2009-1-81] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BARAN ROY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-1-42] [REFERRED TO : 2002 AIR SCW 4315) THIS COURT OBSERVED: SCC P. 355)]
BHARATH ROY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2023-2-38] [REFERRED TO]
AHAMMED KABEER VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2019-6-92] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD ABID VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-342] [REFERRED TO]
POOLUTHEVAR VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-546] [REFERRED TO]
SK MUSTAFA SK IBRAHIM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-6-37] [REFERRED TO]
RAM AWADH PANDEY & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-253] [REFERRED]
CHANDER SINGH VS. STTE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2012-3-93] [REFERRED TO]
BABULAL BHAGWAN KHANDARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2004-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
JALARAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2005-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMRAO HANUMANTRAO RAO VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-4-235] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The accused is in appeal before this Court against judgment of the Madras High Court upholding his conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and consequential sentence of imprisonment for life.
(2.)The factual scenario as described by the prosecution needs to be noted in brief. On 19-8-1989, there was exchange of hot words over the release of a sheep. Palaniswamy (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") impounded the sheep which, according to him, was destroying his crops. Accused and others went to the place where the sheep was tied and they untied it from the rope. This led to exchange of words between the deceased and the accused. When the deceased fell down after receiving injuries on his hand and left shoulder, the accused again inflicted another blow on his neck. The occurrence was witnessed byPW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. Information was lodged at the police station and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed and the accused faced trial. The accused took the plea of false implication and alternatively pleaded that the assaults were made in exercise of right of private defence. The trial Court placing reliance on evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 came to hold that the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased. Plea of the accused that the assaults were made in exercise of the right of private defence was not accepted, more particularly in view of the fact that even after the deceased had fallen down, the accused inflicted a further blow on the neck.
(3.)In appeal, the High Court did not find any merit in the submissions made to the effect that this was a case which was clearly covered by the accused's exercise of right of private defence. Having rejected this stand of the accused, the High Court analysed the evidence to conclude that the conviction was justified.
(2.)The factual scenario as described by the prosecution needs to be noted in brief. On 19-8-1989, there was exchange of hot words over the release of a sheep. Palaniswamy (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") impounded the sheep which, according to him, was destroying his crops. Accused and others went to the place where the sheep was tied and they untied it from the rope. This led to exchange of words between the deceased and the accused. When the deceased fell down after receiving injuries on his hand and left shoulder, the accused again inflicted another blow on his neck. The occurrence was witnessed byPW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. Information was lodged at the police station and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed and the accused faced trial. The accused took the plea of false implication and alternatively pleaded that the assaults were made in exercise of right of private defence. The trial Court placing reliance on evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 came to hold that the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased. Plea of the accused that the assaults were made in exercise of the right of private defence was not accepted, more particularly in view of the fact that even after the deceased had fallen down, the accused inflicted a further blow on the neck.
(3.)In appeal, the High Court did not find any merit in the submissions made to the effect that this was a case which was clearly covered by the accused's exercise of right of private defence. Having rejected this stand of the accused, the High Court analysed the evidence to conclude that the conviction was justified.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.