State vs Kanbi Chhagan Prag

Shah, C.J.—This is an appeal from an order of acquittal, by the Sessions Judge, Gohilwad Division, of the Respondent Chhagan Prag of an

offence of murder. The deceased Ravji was the elder brother of the accused and he had returned to his village Umrala only two days prior to the

offence after serving a sentence of five years'' imprisonment for the murder of his father. He went to the house of the accused, in the early morning

of 30-1-1950, to demand his share in the ancestral property, and there picked up a quarrel with the accused which resulted in a ''Maramari'' and in

the course thereof the accused hit the deceased on the head with a shovel. Ravji died the same afternoon and the accused was thereupon

prosecuted for the murder. The accused denied having hit the deceased with a shovel and alleged that the deceased ran at him with a spade, but in

the process he dashed against a pillar and fell on the ground. However it was proved by the evidence in the case that the accused had dealt blows

to the deceased with a shovel and that death was caused by the said blows. Though the accused himself did not plead the right of private defence

in his statement, it was contended on his behalf that the injuries had been caused by the accused in the exercise of the right of private defence and

this plea was accepted by the learned Judge and the accused was acquitted.

It is not disputed that the injuries found on the person of the deceased had been caused by the accused. The deceased had nearly eleven surface

injuries but of these only two, one on the head and the other on the back of the left shoulder joint, were major injuries. The remaining injuries were

either abrasions or swellings probably caused by the deceased falling on the ground. The vital injury was a contused wound on the upper and left

side of the back part of the skull which resulted in a fissured fracture and this was responsible for the death. The evidence in the case does show

that there was an altercation and a ''Maramari'' between the deceased and the accused in which the deceased was the aggressor. He had returned

home only two days before after serving a sentence of five years'' imprisonment for murdering his father. He appeared to be a man of violent and

irrepressible temper. He demanded a share in his father''s property and though the accused was agreeable to giving him the share, the deceased

insisted on having it immediately. He had sent for Ramji on the day previous but Ramji could not see him that day and so went to the house of the

deceased in the morning of the day of the offence. The deceased had then already left for the house of the accused. His son went to call him home

but he would not come & on the other hand asked Ramji to meet him at the house of the accused. He was in an excited state of mind and both

Ramji and Keshav tried to pacify him but he was insistent and was bent on having the matter settled forthwith and threatened dire consequences.

Keshav and Ramji felt insulted and left. The accused was not at his house then but appears to have come soon thereafter and the deceased at once

started the quarrel.

We have the evidence of Dudhi the mother of the deceased that the deceased had come there with a spade bent on mischief. Ramji and Keshav

had also seen the deceased having a spade in his hand and considering that the deceased had gone there with the deliberate intention of quarrelling

with the accused and was waiting for the accused to return and that he was bent on mischief, it is not at all improbable that he was the aggressor

and that he rushed at the accused with the spade in hand and that the accused feeling apprehensive of danger to himself picked up the shovel and

hit him. Ramji and Keshav have seen the deceased lying on the ground with a spade in the hand. The accused had justifiable reasons to apprehend

that the deceased would cause grievous hurt to him and he was within his rights to hit the deceased in self-defence. The accused has stated to the

witnesses immediately on the spot that he had struck the deceased in Self-defence. Excepting for the fatal injury on the head the Ors. were minor

injuries and some of them were trivial. In the circumstances it could not be said that the accused has exceeded the right of private defence. We

agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the accused caused the injuries in the exercise of the right of private defence and that he was justified in

doing so. Accordingly we confirm the order of acquittal of the accused and dismiss the appeal. Bail bond to be cancelled.