The High Court has also noted that both the sides had taken a
plea that the land in question where the occurrence had taken place
is in their possession. One of the injured Malli Devi-PW6 also
deposed, as noted by the High Court, that the parties were having
dispute with the accused over land. The High Court has also noted
the Judgment of this Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh and others
v. State of Bihar 1976 (4) SCC 394
which was relied upon by the counsel for the
accused persons in support of private defence and for acquittal on the
ground of non-explanation of death and injuries on the side of the
accused. The High Court drew correct inferences from the aforesaid
judgment but proceeded to convict the appellants on the misconceived
ground that since both the parties had withheld the origin and genesis
of the occurrence and since it cannot be determined as to which party
was the aggressor, the case had to be decided against the accused
persons treating it as a case of free fight between the parties.
The aforesaid view of the High Court is devoid of legal merits.
Once the Court came to a finding that the prosecution has suppressed
the genesis and origin of the occurrence and also failed to explain the
injuries on the person of the accused including death of father of the
appellants, the only possible and probable course left open was to
grant benefit of doubt to the appellants. The appellants can
legitimately claim right to use force once they saw their parents being
assaulted and when actually it has been shown that due to such
assault and injury their father subsequently died. In the given facts,
adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution for not
offering any explanation much less a plausible one.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.416 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 2301 of 2016)
Bhagwan Sahai and Anr. V State of Rajasthan
Dated:June 03, 2016.
Citation: 2016 CRLJ3154 SC
