Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through ... vs Baleshwar Mahto on 22 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Acquittal Appeal No.11 of 2004
--------
The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Giridih ... Appellant
Versus
1. Baleshwar Mahto, son of late Gobardhan Mahto
2. Gullo Mahto, son of Tikait Mahto
3. Ranjeet Mahto, son of late Shakti Mahto @ Randhir Mahto
4. Dulo Mahto, son of late Shakti Mahto
5. Tikait Mahto , son of late Todi Mahto
6. Hari Mahto, son of late Shakti Mahto (abated v.o.d. 5th October 2016)
7. Sukh Dev Mahto, son of late Shakti Mahto
8. Lattu Mahto, son of Mohan Mahto
9. Ganesh Mahto, son of Dukhi Mahto
Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are residents of village Age Goro PS
Jamua District Giridih (Jharkhand) and respondent Nos. 8 and 9 are
residents of village Pachamba (Siyatand) PS Jamua, District Giridih
(Jharkhand). ...... Respondents
-------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.PP
For the Respondent : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
-------
Oral Order
nd
22 March 2023
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.
Nine persons were put on trial in ST Case No. 215 of 1994 on
the charge framed under sections 148, 324, 325, 307 r/w section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned Spl.PP would refer to the
injury reports prepared by PW2 to submit that the trial Court has committed
such serious errors in law bordering perversity which warrant interference
by this Court by exercising powers under section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
3. We have carefully examined the materials on record and come
to a conclusion that the judgment of acquittal of the respondents passed in
ST Case No. 215 of 1994 is well-reasoned and does not warrant any
interference by this Court.
2 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 11 of 2004
4. On the basis of the written report of Nathu Mahto given to the
police on 16th November 1993, a First Information Report vide Deori PS
Case No. 97 of 1993 was registered against Baleshwar Mahto, Gullo Mahto,
Ranjeet Mahto, Dulo Mahto, Tikait Mahto, Hari Mahto, Sukh Dev Mahto,
Lattu Mahto and Ganesh Mahto for committing the offence under sections
147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 25(A) and
26 of the Arms Act.
5. In the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether nine
witnesses out of whom Nathu Mahto has tendered the evidence as PW6.
6. In their defence, the accused have produced documentary
evidence, such as, fardbeyan, injury report in Deori PS Case No. 97 of 1993,
sale deeds dated 22nd May 1975 and 13th April 1957 and order of injunction
in TS No. 108 of 1990. They have also examined five witnesses to put forth
a defence that Deori PS Case No.97 of 1993 has been lodged as a counter-
blast to the First Information Report, lodged by the accused party in respect
of which ST No. 307 of 1995 has commenced.
7. In the present case, the prosecution has produced injury report
of PW3 Bishun Mahto, PW4 Suresh Yadav and PW6 Nathu Mahto to prove
the charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The injuries caused
to PW6 are all incised wounds whereas PW4 has suffered firearm injury and
PW3 was assaulted with hard and blunt substance.
8. The injury report of Sukh Dev Mahto who is the appellant
No. 7 was laid in evidence vide Ext.D from which it appears that there were
as many as two firearm injuries, two injuries caused by sharp cutting
weapon and two by hard and blunt substance.
9. The learned trial Judge has referred to the counter case vide ST
No. 307 of 1995 in which Sukh Dev Mahto has suffered firearm injury
allegedly attributed to PW4. This has also come on record that after the
occurrence PW4 had absconded. There is discrepancy in the evidence of the
Investigating Officer and the Doctor who was examined as PW2 in respect
of forwarding of the injury report to the police. On the basis of the
inconsistencies which were apparent on a glance at the record, the trial
Court has recorded a finding that there are serious inconsistencies in the
medical evidence and the ocular evidence.
3 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 11 of 2004
10. From the aforesaid, we find that in the occurrence the
respondents had caused injuries to PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW 6 in
self- defence.
11. In "Kashmiri Lal v. State of Punjab"(1996) 10 SCC 471 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :
"17. ... A person who is unlawfully attacked has every right to
counteract and attack upon his assailant and cause such injury as
may be necessary to ward off the apprehended danger or threat."
12. In "Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab" (2010) 2 SCC 333 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down following principles as to the
exercise of the right of private defence :
"58. The following principles emerge on scrutiny of the following
judgments:
(i) Self-preservation is the basic human instinct and is duly
recognised by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilised
countries. All free, democratic and civilised countries recognise
the right of private defence within certain reasonable limits.
(ii) The right of private defence is available only to one who is
suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending
danger and not of self-creation.
(iii) A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of
self-defence into operation. In other words, it is not necessary
that there should be an actual commission of the offence in order
to give rise to the right of private defence. It is enough if the
accused apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and it
is likely to be committed if the right of private defence is not
exercised.
(iv) The right of private defence commences as soon as a
reasonable apprehension arises and it is coterminous with the
duration of such apprehension.
(v) It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate
his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude.
(vi) In private defence the force used by the accused ought not to
be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for
protection of the person or property.
(vii) It is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self-
defence, it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from
the material on record.
(viii) The accused need not prove the existence of the right of
private defence beyond reasonable doubt.
(ix) The Penal Code confers the right of private defence only
when that unlawful or wrongful act is an offence.
(x) A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing
his life or limb may in exercise of self-defence inflict any harm
even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is
attempted or directly threatened."
13. While so, we do not find any ground to interfere with the
judgment of acquittal dated 31st July 2003 passed by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge-5th, Fast Track Court, Giridih in ST Case
4 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 11 of 2004
No. 215 of 1994 and, accordingly, Acquittal Appeal No. 11 of 2004 is
dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 22nd March, 2023
S.B./Nibha-NAFR
