Gurdev Singh vs State of Punjab

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar in Sessions Case No. 571 of 1985 dated 29.10.1986 for the offence under Section 304 I.P.C.

According to the case of the prosecution, the accused attacked one Tehal Singh with Kulhari and gave 3/4 blows on the neck and back of the head of Tehal Singh, who died due to the injuries caused by the appellant. The evidence of the Doctor who was examined in the case clearly shows that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him. It is also in evidence that the quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased and there was grappling among Tehal Singh and the wife of the accused. To get his wife released from the arms of the deceased, the accused gave kulhari blows. The evidence further shows that the deceased Tehal Singh tried to commit rape on the wife of the accused. At that time the accused came to the scene of offence and caused injuries so as to get his wife released. The evidence of DW1 clearly proves the same. Further even according to the prosecution witnesses, the occurrence took place at the house of the accused. The evidence of PW2 who is the son of the deceased, also shows that he found that the wife of the accused was pulling his father. The evidence of PW3 shows that when he and Bakshish Singh reached the house of the accused they found the wife of the accused and Tehal Singh grappling with each other and at that time the accused attacked Tehal Singh.

In defence, the accused examined his wife as DW1. Her evidence also shows that the deceased came to her house and caught hold of her and threw her on the cot by giving a push and he wanted to commit sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, it is clear that when the deceased and the wife of the accused were grappling with each other, the accused came there and gave injuries to the deceased which ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased.

In the circumstances, I do not think that the accused had committed any offence. Under Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.

From the evidence on record, it is clear that in order to prevent the deceased from committing rape on the wife of the accused, the accused caused injuries to the deceased. Therefore, the accused cannot be said to have committed any offence. Further under Section 100 of the Penal Code, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the right of private defence.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the accused caused injuries to prevent the deceased from committing rape on his wife and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar under Section 304 I.P.C.

It is unfortunate that though the appeal is pending for the last more than 12 years, it has not been heard. It is also on record that the accused has been in jail for a quite sufficient time though released on bail by an order of this Court. To keep the matters pending for years together particularly when the accused are languishing in jail may not speak well of the functioning of the Registry. I trust and hope that the Hon''ble the Chief Justice will consider the desirability of issuing suitable instructions to the Registry to list all the old criminal cases particularly those cases in which the accused are languishing in jail, for final hearing.