- (1.) - The three respondents herein along with one Hari Singh (accused) were put up for trial for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder of Babu Ram (since deceased), an offence punishable under S. 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The Second Addl. District and Sessions Judge Etawah, vide judgment and order dated 29-5-1978 in Sessions Trial No. 199 of 1976 convicted the first respondent/accused Zalim under S. 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Partap the second respondent was convicted under S. 304, Part I read with S. 34, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Pyare the third respondent was also convicted under S. 304, Part I read with S. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. The learned IInd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, however, gave benefit of doubt to Hari Singh and acquitted him of the said charge. The respondents being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence preferred an appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 6-4-1983 allowed the appeal of the respondents and acquitted them of the said charge. The State of U.P. has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order of acquittal passed by the High Court.
(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under:- On 9-5-1976 at about 1.00 p.m., a Panchayat was held in the Varandah of one Ram Das Chowdhary to resolve the dispute as regards a kotha situated at village Bakewar Distt. Etawah. Ram Sarup son of Munni Lal claimed to be in possession of the said kotha but, however, he complained that respondent-Partap Singh and others took forcible possession thereof some five to six days prior to the date of incident which took place on 9-5-1976. The Panchayat deliberated on the issue and suggested that possession of kotha be returned to Ram Sarup to which Partap, the second respondent (accused) and his supporters did not agree. Babu Ram (deceased) was also present at the said Panchayat. It is alleged that a heated discussion lasted for about two or two and half hours but no final decision could be arrived at as regards the said kotha. Babu Ram (deceased) in the said Panchayat told Partap (accused) that he owned 1/3rd share in the grove which is in possession of the respondents (accused) and they are continuing in possession "dishonestly". Partap (accused) thereafter retorted to Babu Ram (deceased) that if he has got power, he could take it back through Court. Babu Ram then replied "if this is so, he would get his share just then and there only". This wordy quarrel led to the exchange of abuses between the two parties and thereupon Babu Ram abused by saying that the dishonest persons would suffer from the disease of "warm". Being felt insulted by this abusive words, Partap also hurled abuses to Babu Ram and his supporters. It is alleged by the prosecution that Babu Ram (deceased) thereafter took off the shoe from his left leg and showed it to Partap. Pyare and Hari Singh the acquitted accused. The respondents felt insulted by the conduct of Babu Ram and thereafter the respondents along with Hari Singh rushed at Babu Ram. Partap, Pyare and Hari Singh (accused) caught hold of Babu Ram and took him in the middle of the road. Chheda Lal son of Babu Ram and others thereafter intervened and tried to separate them but, however, Partap (accused) asked Zalim (accused) the first respondent to cut off the left hand of Babu Ram by which he was holding the shoe. Zalim Singh (accused) took out the knife from his pant pocket and tried to give a blow on the left hand of deceased, however, the said blow fell on the left side of the chest. Because of this injury on a vital part, Babu Ram (deceased) collapsed on the ground. The respondents and the acquitted accused thereafter fled away. Chheda Lal (P.W. 1) lodged the F.I.R. on the same evening at about 9.30 p.m. The investigating officer along with police party reached the place of incident and commenced the investigation. After completing the investigation, four accused came to be charge sheeted for an offence punishable under S. 304/34, I.P.C.
(3.) The respondents (accused) denied the charge and claimed to be tried. They admit their presence but, however, they pleaded a right of private defence. According to the respondents, Babu Ram (deceased) was holding a shoe in his left hand which caused reasonable apprehension in their minds as regards danger to their lives, and therefore, in exercise of their right of private defence they were justified in their action.;