Private defence and burden of proof: injuries on accused raised doubt, but excessive force reduced murder to culpable homicide.

Non-explanation of injuries on the accused does not automatically vitiate the prosecution case where injured eyewitnesses give clear and trustworthy evidence and the surrounding circumstances support the occurrence. Under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, the accused may establish the benefit of private defence by direct evidence, prosecution evidence, or circumstances creating reasonable doubt; on the facts, the injuries on the accused were sufficient to bring the matter within that exception. However, the right of private defence is limited to necessity, and intentional shooting of unarmed persons exceeded that right. The offence was therefore reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the conviction was altered accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution case was vitiated because the injuries on the accused persons were not explained; (ii) whether the accused had made out a right of private defence; (iii) whether, even if such right existed, the use of force exceeded that right so as to attract liability for a lesser offence.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution case was vitiated because the injuries on the accused persons were not explained.

Analysis: The prosecution witnesses were injured eyewitnesses and their testimony was found clear, cogent and convincing. The non-explanation of injuries on the accused did not, by itself, justify rejection of the entire prosecution version. Such omission may weaken the prosecution in an appropriate case, but where the evidence is otherwise trustworthy and the surrounding facts support the occurrence, the court may separate the truth from the falsehood. On the evidence, the injuries on the two accused were held to have been received in the same occurrence.

Conclusion: The prosecution case was not rejected on the ground of non-explanation of the accused persons' injuries.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused had made out a right of private defence.

Analysis: Under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, the accused may discharge the burden relating to general exceptions by leading direct evidence, relying on prosecution evidence, or by showing circumstances that create reasonable doubt. The presumption against the existence of exceptional circumstances is rebuttable. Applying that standard, the court held that the injuries on the accused, including gunshot injuries on one accused, were sufficient to create a reasonable doubt about the absence of private defence and to shift the matter into the field of the statutory exception. The prosecution evidence did not demolish that plea.

Conclusion: The accused were entitled to the benefit of the right of private defence.

Issue (iii): Whether, even if such right existed, the use of force exceeded that right so as to attract liability for a lesser offence.

Analysis: The right of private defence may extend to causing death where there is a real apprehension of death or grievous hurt, but the force used must remain within the limits of necessity. On the facts, the deceased persons were unarmed and were merely proceeding towards the pumping set. The appellants, though entitled to the benefit of private defence, went beyond that right when they intentionally shot the deceased. The act therefore amounted not to murder under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC as originally found, but to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Conclusion: The appellants exceeded the right of private defence and their liability was reduced to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Final Conclusion: The convictions for murder were set aside and substituted by convictions for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, with the sentence reduced accordingly, while the acquittal of the remaining accused stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases governed by Section 105 of the Evidence Act, the accused may establish a general exception by raising a reasonable doubt on the whole evidence, including through circumstances showing private defence, but if the force used goes beyond the lawful right of defence the offence is reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

---