| Headnote |
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w ss.109 and 203 – Prosecution case was that appellant-A-1 was working as Forest Range Officer– On the fateful day, while he was on duty and going in his official jeep along with co-accused, the driver of his jeep, he noticed four persons (deceased driver, PW1, PW2 and one cleaner) in a lorry –Suspecting smuggling of sandalwood, he chased them and after some distance when the lorry stopped and the driver of the lorry and his associates started running, he fired a gun shot from his DBL-gun which hit the driver causing his death – It was the case of prosecution that the lorry which the deceased was driving was empty,however, the appellant after he shot the deceased, got down from his jeep and loaded sandalwood weighing 276 Kgs and also keptone SBML gun in the lorry – Thereafter, with the help of co-accused,the appellant caught hold of PW-1 and PW-2 and brought them to police station and gave the false information by lodging the complaint that he fired the gun shot to the deceased in his right of private defence – Appellant along with co-accused was tried for offence under s.302 r/w ss.109 and 203, s.36-A and E of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and s.3 r/w s.25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 – Appellant was convicted while co-accused was acquitted by trial court – High Court allowed the appeal in part and altered conviction of appellant under s.302 to s.304 Part II while acquitting him for offence under Arms Act and Forest Act – On appeal, held: Both the eye witnesses PWs 1 and 2 and also other two more witnesses, namely, PW-3 andPW-7 were declared hostile and, therefore, there was no evidence to prove as to how and in what manner, the incident in question took place – Prosecution was not able to prove the manner in which the incident occurred as alleged by them in their charge sheet – In this view of the matter, the appellant was entitled to be acquitted from the charges for want of any evidence against him – Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 – s.36-A and E – Arms Act, 1959 –s.3 r/ws.25(1-B)(a).Penal Code, 1860: ss.96 to 106 – Right of private defence –Appellant-A-1 was working as Forest Range Officer – On the fateful day, while he was on duty, he noticed that four persons were going in a lorry – Suspecting smuggling activity, he chased them –Thereafter, the driver of the lorry and his associates started pelting stones at them and shouted “fire them” – At that time, appellant fired a gun shot which hit the driver of the lorry resulting his death– Defence of the appellant that he fired a gun shot on the deceased party in his right of private defence, was not accepted by High Court – On appeal, held: High Court failed to appreciate that the appellant had every reason to believe that due to suspicious movement of the deceased party in the forest, they were trying to smuggle the sandalwood from the forest – The deceased party was aggressor because, they first pelted the stones and damaged the appellant’s vehicle shouting “fire them” – It was the duty of the appellant to apprehend the culprits who were involved in the activity of smuggling sandalwood and at the same time to protect himself and his driver in case of any eventuality arising while apprehend culprits – The appellant while firing the gun shot did not target any particular person out of four as such but fired to resist their aggression towards him and his driver – If the appellant had not fired, the deceased party having said “fire them” would have either used their gun in shooting the appellant or the driver or would have run away from the spot to avoid their arrest – One gun was seized from the deceased party on their arrest which was deposited by the appellant along with his own gun in the police station while registering the FIR – The appellant being a forest ranger on duty was entitled to use his gun against the deceased party – In view of this, firing of gun shot by the appellant towards the deceased party was not unjustified.Penal Code, 1860: ss.96 to 106 – Right of private defence –Exercise of – The right does not arise if there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities, and for another, it does not extend to the infliction of more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence – Another limitation is that when death is caused, the person exercising the right must be under reasonable apprehension of death, or grievous hurt, to himself or to those whom he is protecting; and in the case of property, the danger to it must be of the kinds specified in s.103. |
