In Cross-Cases, Prosecution Evidence Establishing Accused as Aggressors Negates the Plea of Private Defence

The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court on 13.11.1986 for offenses under Sections 147, 323/149, and 308/149 of the IPC regarding an incident on 14.06.1982.

The prosecution alleged that while the victim, Kailash, was repairing a wall, the five accused assaulted him with lathis and a spear, eventually pushing him into a pond (gadhai) where he became unconscious.

The defense claimed a cross-case existed, asserting they acted in self-defense during a dispute over agricultural land.

During the pendency of the appeal, four appellants died, leaving Jai Nath as the sole surviving appellant.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, specifically considering the existence of a cross-case.

2. Whether the appellants were the aggressors or if they caused injuries in the valid exercise of the right of private defense.

The Court applied Section 147 IPC (Rioting), Section 323/149 IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt with common object), and Section 308/149 IPC (Attempt to commit culpable homicide with common object).

Regarding procedural adjudication of cross-cases, the Court relied on the precedent of Nathilal v. State of U.P. (1990), which mandates that each case in a cross-suit must be decided solely on its own recorded evidence without being influenced by arguments or evidence in the counter-case.

For the right of private defense, the Court applied the principles summarized in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr (2010), emphasizing that the right is available only to avert impending danger and is lost once the threat is routed.

The Court evaluated the testimony of P.W. 1 (Informant), P.W. 2 (Independent witness), and P.W. 3 (Injured victim), finding them consistent and trustworthy despite minor cross-examination discrepancies.

It noted that the presence of injuries on the victims, supported by the medical testimony of P.W. 4, corroborated the use of blunt objects like lathis.

Although the defense argued they acted in self-defense, the Court observed that the appellants failed to produce any defense witnesses or medical evidence to prove their own injuries or the complainant’s role as the aggressor.

Following the Darshan Singh criteria, the Court reasoned that the appellants were the primary aggressors who chased and pushed an injured, non-swimmer victim into a pond, an act that exceeded any reasonable apprehension of danger.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirmed the conviction of Jai Nath under Sections 147, 323/149, and 308/149 IPC, and upheld the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant’s bail was cancelled, and he was ordered to surrender within three weeks.