RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

16. The learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court did not record any finding that all the accused persons formed . a common object. There was no premeditation on the part of the accused. Two of the accused have been found guilty under Sections 302 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and other accused under Sections 326 and 148 thereof. Mr. Sengupta may be correct in his submission that the prosecution has not come out with the genesis of the i occurrence. We also do not know as to why both the cases were not taken up by the same court one after the other. We furthermore fail to understand as to how a criminal case of 1999 is still pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.

17. The learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court appeared to have proceeded on the premise that as the 1- appellants had not ~een able to prove their defence, and therefore, the prosecution version should be accepted. The approach of the courts below was, thus, not correct. The investigation was carried out in a slipshod manner. The [2008] 17 S.C.R. e ,,.. FIR clearly showed that even ,before lodging of the FIR, investigation had started. The inquest was corrducted, bloodstained grass and soil ha~ been, seized and the dead body was sent for post-mortem.

18. It is beyond anybody'$ comprehension that if the B incident had taken place at about 2'0 clock and it took about one and half hours for P.W. 17 tp reach the village Simultand, how the FIR was recorded at ab?ut 3.45 p.m. while the inquest report was prepared at about 4.05 p.m. and blood stained grass and soil was seized at about 5.00 p.m. The injured c persons received grievous injuries. It was expected that they would be rendered some medical help at the earliest. They were unconscious and, thus, they should have been sent for treatment to a nearby hospital. It was absolutely necessary that at least some medical help is rendered to them. They reached Dr. Kejriwal's Nursing Home at ,about 7.00 p.m. The following injuries were noticed by P .W.11, in his own words: "On Gour Das I found following injuries: l.,. 1. Incised wound in left palm 9 cm x 1 cm cutting or superficial (illegible) 2. Abrasion on left shoulder joint. Aged within 6 hours. No. 1 by sharp instrument, 2nd by hard substance. No.1 grievous in nature and 2 simple. r,. On Puran Chand Das found following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound pn scalp 5 cm x 0.6 cm x .5 cm avulsing on muscl~s. 2. Incised wound on (jllegible) left scapula .10 cm x 1.2 cm. 3. Incised wound (ill~gible) left knee joint 8 cm x 10 cm. age within 6 h(s. Number one caused hard blunt , object and anoth,er by sharp instrument. All the injuries are grievous the two injuries re in pen and signature Exh.4 and 4A. ?""""- In response to all the ~elevant questions, his standard RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE 9F JHARKHAND 437 [S.B. SINHA, J.] [S.B. SINHA, J.] answer was "I do not remember".

19. If the prosecution case is correct that the dead body as also the injured persons were brought to the referral hospital, the same having been found to be closed, the injured were admitted in the Nursing Home, there was no reason as to why a police personnel did not accompany them. It is also strange that neither the exact location of injury on the head of the Pu ran Das was stated nor description of the said injury had been furnished by the Doctor. He was also not in a position to say whether injury No. 3 was from the· front or behind. According to him all injuries could be caused by similar weapons. He, in c his injury report, even did not mention the colour of injury.

20. Whereas all the other prosecution witnesses were admitted in the hospital on the same day, P.W. 7 is said to have been admitted on the next day although he had suffered a grievous injury. It is not known whether he had been given any medical aid or not. Statement of none of the witnesses was -'t recorded either on the day on which the occurrence had taken place or the day after.

21. P.W. 1 was examined after the 'Shradh Ceremony' of deceased was over which would be about twelve days after the death. P.W. 3 stated that he was examined after one month. Statement of P.W. 7 was also taken after he was discharged from hospital, i.e., at least after a week. The Investigating Officer in a case of this nature should have been examined. His examination by the prosecution was i• necessary to show that there had been a fair investigation. Unfortunately, even no site plan was prepared. There is nothing on record to show as to the exact place where the occurrence had taken place. It is stated that the house of the parties is divided by a road. If that be so, it was all the more necessary G to pin point the exact place of occurrence to ascertain who was the aggressor. –t

22. No doubt, a life is lost and two persons suffered gri~vous injuries but we must also notice the injuries suffered by \wo of the appellants as was disclosed by Dr. Virendra A Kumar (D.W. 2) in his evidence. c "On 31.10.1997 I was posted at M.O. at Chandankiyari. On that day at 9.30 p.m. I examined Ravishwar Manjhi s/o Berga Manjhi P.S. Chandankiyari, District Bokaro and found following injuries: (1) Incised wound 1 1/2'1 x 1/6" x 1/6" over left palm ventrally below (illegible) of thumb by sharp cutting substance. (2) Scratches at four places over both sides of back and upper portions due to sharp cutting instrument 6" and 5" (3) Incised wound at two ·places over right palm posteriorly 4" x 1 /2" x 1" deep and 2" x 1 /4" x 1 ~4 .. by sharp cutting instrument. (4) Age within 12 hours. '1 and 2 simple and 3 grievous. On the same day I exa111inei:i Jaleshwar Manjhi, w/o Berga Manjhi of same village and found following injuries. (1) Incised wound at two places over head posterior and interior by sharp cutting substance 3" x 1/2" x skin deep over top of head posteriorly. (2) 2" x 1/4" x skin deep over front head. (3) · Complain of pain oh whole body without illegible. Injury with 12 hours 1simple. The patient Ravishwar Manjhi was referred for X-ray and on receipt of the report both injuries on palm were found to be grievous.

23. The injuries being grievous in nature, the prosecution owed a duty to explain the .same. It is unfortunate that the Jlligh Court did not take serious notice of the nature of injuries suffered by the appellants, relying on the decision of this Court in Ayodhya Ram alias Ayodhya Prasad Singh and Ors. vs. StC1te of Bihar [( 1999) 9 SCC 139], wherein only minor injuries were suffered by the accused H persons. t • RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 439 [S.B. SINHA, J.]

24. Out of seven eyewitnesses, P.W. 7 was not believed by the courts below. P.Ws. 4 and 5 were not present exactly at the place of occurrence. They are said to have witnessed only a part of the occurrence. All other eyewitnesses were related to the deceased. However, we do not hesitate to add that only on that ground their evidences should not be disbelieved. Furthermore, there was no enmity between the parties. Only a case un·der Secti~n 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pending against them. Even in respect thereof, no documentary evidence was brought on record to show as to when the said proceeding was initiated and at whose c …. instance. The prosecution witnesses merely supported the prosecution case that a death had taken place and two witnesses suffered grievous injuries but it was absolutely necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case to show that the accused were the aggressors. It was for that reason D the genesis of the prosecution case must be held to have grave significance.

25. The very fact that the appellants had gone back to their house to come out with arms and caused injuries on the person of the deceased and injured persons may or may not be correct, but even accepting the prosecution case to be correct, evidently the prosecution party also went to their house and brought weapons from their house. If it is accepted that the appeflants were armed with such deadly weapons, it must also be accepted that the prosecution witnesses would also be -r· armed with such weapons. It is, inter alia, for this reason the production of 'Sanha' entry was necessary. We are not oblivious of the fact that a mere information received on phone by a Police Officer without any details as regards the identity of the accused or the nature of injuries caused by the victims as well as the name of the culprits may not be treated as FIR, but had G the same been produced, the nature of information received -t by the poHce officer would have been clear.

It is interesting to note that the High Court in its judgment recorded the following: "The explanation given by the prosecution witnesses that they could not notice the injuries, if any, on the person of H e the above named appellants c>n account ofthe fact that they themselves had sustained i~juries and one of thetr own having sustained fatal injuries had died at the spot and the assault continued hardly for less than five mfautes whereafter the assailants ha,d fie~ away, appears to be a reasonable explanation as far as the injured witnesses are concerned. This, however, d9es not apply to the other eye witnesses, since they had an opportunity .to see the entire occurrence from the beginning to end. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution and that by the defence, it c appears that both sides had indulged in a free fight with each other in course of which, members of both the parties had sustained injuries. In the FIR of the counter …… case instituted by the appellant Ravishwar Manjhi, a feeble attempt to explain the injuries found on the person of the members of the prosecution party has been made. It is contended that it was in exercise of right of private defence by the appellants while resisting the advances made by the deceased that some injuries may have been caused to the t- deceased and other members of his family."

26. If there was a free fight which might have taken place and where both the parties we~e ,armed with deadly weapons and suffered injuries, all the appellants could not have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The entire case should have been viewed by the courts below from that angle. The case was required to be considered in the light of the defence case. The High Court opined that the deceased was accosted by the appellant, not in their house, but outside -i.- l their house on the road is not a matter of moment, particularly when the High Court itself recorded that house of the deceased Nagender Nath Das and that of the appellant Ravishwar Manjhi G were opposite to each other with a road (alley) dividing the same. If the dead body was lying on the alley, it matters little as to whether it was in front of the house of the appellant or the deceased.

27. The plea of the appel'lants as regards exercise of th~ ,… H right of private defence has been negatived by the High Court .,., RAVISHWAR MANJHI &'ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 441 [S.B. SINHA, J.] only on the ground that the right to private defence had ceased p.. …. immediately after the deceased had retreated from their house . But what has not been considered is the causa causan of the incident. Whether the outraging of modesty of a female member of the family of the accused was the reason giving rise to the occurrence is a question which should have been considered. If that be so, it was for the prosecution to prove that attempt on the part of the appellants to cause injuries was not as a result of previous enmity but for a different purpose. If the allegations made in the FIR that the appellants were d drunk was correct, it was obligatory on the part of the P .W. 17 and consequently the Investigating Officer to get the said fact established. Medical evidence does not suggest the same. rhis aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice of the Doctor treating the accused. There were, thus, two versions. Both were probable and if that be so, the plea of exercise of right of private defence raised by the appellant deserved serious consideration.

28. There was no material brought on records to show that the appellants were the aggressors. If everything had happened within a short span of time as is alleged by the prosecution, namely, the appellants were causing nuisance which was objected to by the deceased; they went to their respective houses; came armed and started assaulting the deceased and ·other injured persons, it was also necessary for the prosecution i to prove as to how accused persons received injuries. It is now a well settled principle of law that the accused can show that they·were entitled to exercise right of private defence from the materials on records brought by the prosecution.

29. The places where the injuries had been inflicted also assume significance. If the prosecution witnesses are to be believed, the first injury was caused on hand. It was thereafter "1 injuries were caused on other parts of the person of the prosecution witnesses and the last injury was caused by 'tenta' . In Chanan Singh vs. State of Punjab [(1979) 4 SCC 399, e this Court held: ".It is true that the defence case al,so has not been accepted r by the High Court but once there is a probability of the accused having acted in self-defence, that is sufficient to entitle him to an acquittal." In Bishna Alias Bhiswadeb Mahato & ors. vs. State of WB. [(2005) 12 sec 657], this Court noticed that a right of private defence need not specifically be taken and in the event the court on the basis of the materials placed on record is in a position to come to such a conclusion, the court may act c thereupon. It was held: "74. 'Right of private defence' is ,not defined.

Nothing is an offence in terms of Section 96 ofthe Indian Penal Code, if it is done in exercise of ther right of private defence. Section 97 deals with the subject matter of private defence. The plea of right ·of private defence comprises the body or property. It, however, extends not only to 19erson · exercising the right; but to any other person. The right may ….. be exercised in the case of any offence against the body and in the case of offences of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass and attempts at such offences in relation to property. Sections 96 and 98 confer a right of private defence against certain offences and acts. Section 99 lays down the limit therefor. The rigHt conferred upon a person in terms of Section 96 to 98 and 100 to 106 is controlled by Section 99. In terms of Section .99 of the Indian Penal Code, the right of private defe~ce, in no case, extends to inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the .,,. putpose of defence.

Section 1 do provides that the rigtit of private defence of the body ext13nds under the restrictions mentioned in the last precedi11g section to the voluntary causing of death or of any oth,er harm to the assailant if the offence which occasions tl:le exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions enumerated therein, namely, "First – Such an assault, as may reasonably cause the app'rehension that death , will otherwise be the consequence of such assault; Secondly – Such an assault RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 443 [S.B. SINHA, J.] as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be.the consequence of such assault". To claim a right of private defence extending to voluntary causing of death, the accused must show that there were Circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to him. The burden in this behalf is on the accused."

30. Yet again in Surendra & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 11 SCC 434], this Court held: "26. We .are not unmindful of the fact that in all circumstances injuries on the person of the accused need c not be explained but a different standard would be applied in a case where a specific plea of right of private defence has been raised. It may be true that in the event prosecution discharges its primary burden of proof, the onus would shift on the accused but the same would not mean that the ' 0 burden can be discharged only by examining defence witnesses. ,….. 27. The learned courts below committed a manifest error of law in opining that the Appellants had not discharged the initial burden which is cast on them. Even such a plea E need not be specifically raised. The Courts may only see … \ as to whether tile plea of exercise of private defence was probable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

32. In regard to the duty of t~e prosecution to explain the injuries on the part of the accused, this Court observed: 1' '78. Section 105 of the. Eiliaence Act casts the burden of proof on the accused who sets up the plea of self-defence and in the absence of proof, it may not be possible for the court to presume the correctness or otherwise of the said plea. No G positive evidence although is required to be adduced by the accused; it is possible for him to prove the said fact by eliciting the necessary materials from the witnesses examined by the prosecution. He can establish his plea also from the c attending circumstances, 'as may transpire from the evidence led by the pros~cution itself. 79. In a large number of cases, this Court, however, has laid down the law that a person who i.~ apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales on the s 1pur of the moment and in the heat of circumstanc~s. the number of ·injuries .. required to disarm the assailants who were armed with weapons.

In moments of excitement and disturbed equilibrium it is often difficult to exp11ct the parties to preserve composure and use exactly only so much force in retaliatiqn commensurate with the danger apprehended to him where assault is imminent by use of fore~. All circumstances are required to be viewed with pragmat(sin :and any , hypertechnical approachrshould be ~voided. 80. To put it simply, if a ~efence is rnade o'ut, the accused is entitled to be acquitted· aAd ·if not he will be convicted of murde~. But in c~ae of use of excessive force, he would be convicted under Section 304 IPC." 31. In Satya Narain Yadav v. Gajanand & Anr. raooe(10) SCALE 728], this Court held: "14. As noted in Butta Singh v. The State of Punjqb (AIR. 1991 SC 1316), a person who i~ apprehending death 't>r" bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales in the s1mri.of moment and in the heat of circumstances, the numbef of injuries required to disarm the assailants who were armed with weapons. In moments of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium it is often difficult to expect the parties to preserve composure and use exactly only so much force in retaliation commensurate with 1the danger apprehended to him where assault is imminent by use of force, it would be lawful to repel the force in self-defence and the right of private defence commences, as soon as the threat becomes so imminent. Such' situations have to be pragmatically viewed and ~ot with high-powered t RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 445 [S.B. SINHA, J.] spectacles or microscopes to detect slight or even A marginal overstepping. Due weightage has to be given to, and hyper technical approach has to be avoided in considering what happens on the spur of the moment on the spot and keeping in view normal hum'an reaction and conduct, where self-preservation is the paramount 8 consideration. But, if the fact situation shows that in the guise of self-preservation, what really has been done is to assault the original aggressor, even after the cause of reasonable apprehension has disappeared, the plea of right of private-defence can legitimately be negatived. The c Court dealing with the plea has to weigh the material to conclude whether the plea is acceptable. It is essentially, as noted above, a finding of fact." 32. We may notice that the learned Sessions Judge, while examining Jaleshwar Manjhi, did not put any question to him as to whether he had killed the deceased or assaulted anybody.

33. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion, that it is possible for the court to arrive at the conclusion that )i the appellants were entitled to exercise their right of private defence. The appeal is allowed. Ravishwar Manjhi (accused E No. 5), Jaleshwar Manjhi (accused No. 6) and Kala Chandra Manjhi (acused No.3) who are in custody are directed to be set at liberty and released forthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case . The bail bonds of Santu Manjhi (accused No. 4) and Umakant Rajak (accused No. 1) shall stand discharged. -t K.K.T. Appeal allowed. ,'t