1990 (4) TMI 300 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court alters convictions from Section 302/149 to Section 304 Part I with Section 34 IPC

The Supreme Court set aside the appellants' convictions under Section 302/149 IPC, convicting them instead under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 ... Right of private defence - burden of proof under Section 105 of the Evidence Act - presumption of absence of circumstances bringing the case within an exception - standard of proof - reasonable doubt versus preponderance of probabilities - effect of non-explanation of injuries on accused - reclassification of offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murderEffect of non-explanation of injuries on accused - Whether the gun-shot and lacerated injuries found on two accused were sustained during the occurrence and what legal effect, if any, flowed from the prosecution's failure to explain them. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined medical and radiological evidence (including P.W.7 and the radiologist D.W.1) and the trial/High Court findings and concluded that the gun shot pellets and the lacerated wound were caused during the same occurrence. The Court held that non explanation of injuries by the prosecution does not automatically vitiate the entire prosecution case: where prosecution evidence is otherwise clear, cogent and convincing the mere absence of an explanation for injuries on some accused cannot by itself be the sole ground for rejecting the case. However, unexplained injuries may probabilise the defence plea (including private defence) and can give rise to reasonable doubt. Applying these principles to the present facts, the Court found the injuries on accused Nos.13 and 14 were inflicted during the occurrence by members of the prosecution party, and that this fact could not be treated as fatal to the prosecution case but was material for assessing the defence of private defence. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10]The injuries on accused Nos.13 and 14 were sustained during the occurrence; their unexplained nature did not automatically invalidate the prosecution case but was material to the consideration of private defence and created a relevant doubt.Burden of proof under Section 105 of the Evidence Act - presumption of absence of circumstances bringing the case within an exception - standard of proof - reasonable doubt versus preponderance of probabilities - right of private defence - What is the nature and extent of the burden on an accused who pleads the general exception of private defence under Section 105, Evidence Act, and whether the appellants discharged that burden or raised a reasonable doubt entitling them to the benefit of the exception. - HELD THAT: - The Court reviewed authorities and statutory definitions and held that the general burden of proving guilt always remains on the prosecution, while Section 105 places an onus on the accused to prove circumstances bringing the case within an exception and creates a rebuttable presumption of their absence. The accused may discharge this onus either by adducing evidence to a preponderance of probabilities (civil standard) or by placing material which, when considered with the whole evidence, creates a reasonable doubt as to an ingredient of the offence; in either event the initial presumption under Section 105 is displaced. The Court applied these principles and found that the proved infliction of injuries on the accused by the prosecution party, together with the defence medical evidence, though insufficient to fully establish the exception on the balance of probabilities, created a reasonable doubt about the existence of mens rea for murder and about whether the appellants were wholly outside the ambit of private defence. [Paras 24, 25, 26, 33, 34]Section 105 requires the accused to introduce material which may either establish the exception on a preponderance of probabilities or at least raise a reasonable doubt; on the facts the appellants succeeded in creating a reasonable doubt about their entitlement to private defence.Right of private defence - reclassification of offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Whether, having found that private defence at least raised a reasonable doubt, the appellants nevertheless exceeded that right and, if so, what the proper conviction and sentence should be. - HELD THAT: - The Court accepted that a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt may justify use of lethal force, but whether force used was excessive is a question of fact. On the material, the deceased were proceeding to bathe and there was no evidence they were armed with deadly weapons; even assuming private defence arose, the appellants went beyond permissible defensive force by intentionally firing to cause death. Consequently the element of intention requisite for murder was not fully established but the acts amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I. The Court therefore altered the conviction to that lesser offence and imposed concurrent custodial sentences of ten years on each of the four appellants. [Paras 35, 36, 37, 38]The appellants exceeded the right of private defence; convictions for murder were set aside and substituted with convictions for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC) with appropriate sentences.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the unexplained injuries on two accused were inflicted during the occurrence and, while not fatal to the prosecution case, justified consideration of private defence; applying the law under Section 105 Evidence Act the appellants raised a reasonable doubt as to murder, and the Court reduced convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC) and imposed concurrent sentences of ten years' imprisonment on the four convicted appellants, while dismissing the State's appeals against acquittals of the others. Issues Involved:1. Conviction of the accused under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, and 307 IPC.2. Discrepancies in the evidence and non-explanation of injuries on the accused.3. Right of private defence and the burden of proof under Section 105 of the Evidence Act.4. Determination of whether the accused exceeded the right of private defence.Summary:1. Conviction of the accused under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, and 307 IPC:On 29.5.1981, a grave rioting took place in Tirro village, resulting in the deaths of Mahendra Singh and Virendra Singh and injuries to Vijay Narain Singh, Uma Shankar Singh, and Kailash Singh. Fourteen accused were tried under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The trial court convicted all 14 accused based on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, awarding life imprisonment u/s 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The High Court was divided in its opinion, leading to a third Judge, Seth, J., acquitting ten accused and confirming the conviction of Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 6.2. Discrepancies in the evidence and non-explanation of injuries on the accused:The prosecution failed to explain the injuries on accused Nos. 13 and 14. The evidence showed that accused No. 13 had gun-shot injuries and accused No. 14 had a lacerated wound, both received during the occurrence. The trial court and High Court Judges had differing views on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the explanation of these injuries.3. Right of private defence and the burden of proof under Section 105 of the Evidence Act:The Supreme Court discussed the burden of proof under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, stating that the accused must prove the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any exception. The Court referred to several precedents, emphasizing that the burden on the accused is to establish a preponderance of probability and that the prosecution must still prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the non-explanation of injuries on the accused could create a reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case.4. Determination of whether the accused exceeded the right of private defence:The Court held that the accused had a right of private defence but exceeded it by intentionally shooting the deceased. The evidence suggested that the deceased were not armed with deadly weapons, and the accused's response was disproportionate. Consequently, the Court modified the conviction from Section 302/149 IPC to Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing the accused to 10 years imprisonment.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/149 IPC and instead convicted them under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing each to 10 years imprisonment. The other sentences/convictions were confirmed, and the appeals were allowed to this extent.