Citation – 1975 AIR 1478
Petitioner – State of Gujarat
Respondent –Bai Fatima
Bench – N.L. Untwalia, A. Alagiriswami
Date of Judgement – 19/03/1975
Concerned Statutes – Section 304, Section 323 r/w section 149 and section 96 of Indian Penal code.
Facts –The relations between the brothers Allarakha Hussain and Gulab Hussain Khan were none too cordial. The respondent 1 was the wife of Allarakha Hussain and respondent 2 was his married daughter. They lived adjacent to each other in the town Kalol, Gujarat.
The deceased along with some other people of the locality filed a complaint in the municipality against Allarakha that he was discharging dirty water of his house towards east which gets collected on the road and cause a nuisance to the residents. This has caused differences among the families of the brothers.
There were two incidents that happened in the evening of 27/06/1968 one was at 5:30 when a she goat of the deceased strayed to the house of respondent 1 she started beating the goat with a lathi. When the family of Gulab Hussain Khan got to know about it both of the parties started quarrelling over this.
Respondent 2 and her son started throwing stones which hit the wife of the deceased and their neighbor. Another incident happened at 6:30 when the deceased was sitting at his father in law’s home which was also in the same locality respondent 1 came there with a stick and gave a blow to the deceased.
The wife of the deceased intervened and got injured and the deceased directed the respondent to go back to her house.
Later when deceased reached near his home the respondent 1 is said to have put a leg across his legs due to which he fell down and respondent 2 caught hold his hands meanwhile respondent 1 pulled his testicles with force due to which he died eventually because of shock.
The trial court considering all the evidences convicted the respondents 1 and 2. The respondents filed an appeal in High court against the judgement of trial court and the High court acquitted even after believing the story of prosecution held that the respondent 1have attacked the deceased in self-defense.
Facts in issue –The respondent 1 has filed a complaint against the deceased, his wife and his mother in law for grievous hurt. The High court held that respondent 1 must have squeezed the testicles of deceased in self – defense when he was showering blows upon her.
Legal Issues – Whether the right of private defense was available to the respondents or not?
Whether the non-explanation of injuries of the prosecution adversely affects its case?
Petitioner’s Arguments– It was stated by the learned counsel that the High court has erred in its judgement of acquittal of the respondents. No right of private defense was available to the respondent and High court was wrong in discarding the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
Respondent’s Argument – Respondents was in support of the judgement of the High court.
Ratio of Judgement – It was held by the Supreme Court that the High court has erred in discarding the evidence of witnesses. The High court has discarded the witnesses on flimsy and unsustainable grounds.
It was stated by the court that the view of the High court that the respondent 1 has acted in her self-defense was wrong in law and fact and even going to the maximum extent and considering the facts the respondent 1 has received blows from the deceased in the first incident but the in the second incident the attack of respondent on the deceased was a deliberate one and the injuries received by the respondent was of minor nature.
The respondent has not even mentioned in her complain nor there was any whisper about her exercising her right of private defense when she squeezed the testicles of the deceased and the burden to prove the defense was on the accused which was not discharged satisfactorily.
It was also held by the court that mere non explanation of injuries by the prosecution cannot affect the case of prosecution adversely. Although it is a factor that needs to be considered by the court while giving the right of private defense but there were other factors too which need to be viewed in this light.
Judgement – The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the trial court and stated that the case falls in the third category of section 300 and thus the appeal was allowed. The court convicted the respondent 1 under section 304 and respondent 2 under section 323r/w section 114.
DIVYA BHATT