Citation: Munney Khan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1971 AIR 1491, 1971 SCR (1) 943
Date of Judgement: 28/08/1970
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1491, 1971 SCR (1) 943
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1968
Case type: Special Leave Petition
Appellant: Munney Khan
Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh
Bench: Hon’ble Justice V. Bhargava, Hon’ble Justice Dua
Court: Supreme Court of India
Statue Referred:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 96-102, 302
Facts:
- In Berkhedi, the inhabitants, as per their typical practice, accumulated to observe “Durga Utsav” on 1st October 1965 close to Kabir Mandir and, in that association, a dramatization of “Amar Singh” was to be arranged at around 10 or 10.30 p.m.
- Reoti Singh perished was one of the volunteers who was posted on the job regarding the courses of action near the sitting spot held for the women to check men from entering that region.
- At about 10.30 p.m., the appealing party and his sibling Zulfiquar came and wanted to go through the women corner yet were forestalled by Reoti Singh who mentioned them to go by means of a path, nonetheless that was a more drawn-out course.
- The litigant being irritated on pestering him pushed Reoti Singh and demanded going through the women corner. There was a short battle which reduced when different people interceded.
- Thereafter about little range later, Reoti Singh went to his home to accept his dinners as he was leaving his obligation responsible for Pooran Lal. At the point when Reoti Singh was returning subsequent to taking his suppers, he met the litigant and his sibling Zulfiquar and the squabble began once more.
- Within couple of moments, he overwhelmed Zulfiquar, and he tossed him on the ground and sat on his chest giving clench hand blows.
- The litigant Munney Khan, seeing his sibling being overwhelmed and beaten, acted the hero and attempted to save him by giving clench hand hits to Reoti Singh.
- However still he couldn’t succeed, so he took out a blade and betrayed Reoti Singh.
- In the interim, different people gattered; and the appealing party and his sibling Zulfiquar fled inside couple of moments.
- The Sessions Judge recorded the finding, as expressed by us before, such that Munney Khan appealing party give the blade blow at the rear of Reoti Singh when he found that he was unable to keep Reoti Singh from proceeding to shower clench hand passes up simply clench hand hits to, Reoti Singh.
- This evaluation of the proof was avowed by the High Court. On these realities as found by the Sessions Judge and confirmed by the High Court, the litigant has been indicted for the offense of homicide under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Later this case was placed in fourth on Supreme court.
Issues involved:
- Whether the conviction of the appealing party for the offense under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is justified?
Obiter dicta:
The utilization of the actual blade was in abundance of the right of private guard and it turned out to be considerably more exorbitant when the blow with the blade was given on a crucial piece of the body which, in the normal course of nature, was probably going to cause the passing of Reoti Singh.
Ratio Decidendi:
The blow was given in the back with a blade an induction follows that the litigant planned to cause demise or possibly expected to cause such injury as would, in the normal course of nature, bring about his passing. In receiving this course, the appealing party would have been plainly blameworthy of the offense of homicide had there been no right of private protection of Zulfiquar by any means.
Since a right existed, the case would fall under the exemption under which at fault manslaughter doesn’t add up to kill on-the ground that the passing was caused in exercise of right of private guard, yet by surpassing that right. An offense of this nature is made culpable under the initial segment of segment Section 304 of Indian Penal Code.
Judgment:
The Appellant had exceeded his Right of Private Defence and is guilty of Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder punishable under the first part of Section 304 of Indian Penal Code.
It was held the right of private defence is guarded and neither verdictive nor retributive.
The appeal was halfway permitted, the conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, is saved, and the litigant is indicted rather under the initial segment of Section 304 of Indian Penal Code.
Taking into account the adjustment of the offense for which the litigant is being rebuffed, it was held to put away the sentence of detainment forever and, all things being equal, grant him a sentence of seven years’ thorough detainment.
Conclusion:
While concluding it can be clearly understood by the above discussion that, “There isn’t anything on record to show how the squabble began. It appears to be that when the perished Reoti Singh was getting back from his home to the spot of festivities he more likely than not got a squabble with Zulfikar whom he overwhelmed by tossing him on the ground. The denounced Munney, seeing his sibling being overwhelmed by the perished probably act the hero and attacked him (expired).”
Since a right existed in Indian Penal Code, the case would fall under the special case under which blameable crime doesn’t add up to kill on-the ground that the passing was caused in exercise of right of private guard, however by surpassing that right. An offense of this nature is made culpable under the initial segment of Section 304 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the conviction of the appealing party should be under that arrangement and not under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
Drafted by: Bharti Verma, Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies and School of Law
Published On: September 30, 2021 at 10:10 IST