Citations: Abdul Habib Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 1974 CriLJ 248
Date of Judgement: 16/08/1973
Equivalent citations: 1974 CriLJ 248
Case Type: Criminal Appeal
Appellant: Abdul Habib
Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Bench: Hon’ble Justice K Srivastava, Hon’ble Justice S Kaul
Court: Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
Statutes Referred:
- Indian Penal Code,1860; Section 99, 100, 302, 324, 339, 340, 349, 350, 351, 379
- Arms Act, 1959; Section 4,19, 20, 25, 25(1)(b), 29, 46
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 59, 161
Facts:
- Dr. Kapur, a member of the Army Medical Corps, was stationed in Lucknow. Sarwan Singh (P. W. 13) was also in the Army, and one of his responsibilities was to transport Army dak to Dr. Kapur’s Apartment. He went to deliver the dak. as usual at around 4:45 p.m. on January 17, 1970, and after parking his cycle outside the home, he handed it over to him.
- He spotted the appellant riding his cycle and attempting to flee as he was about to return after giving the dak. Sarwan Singh challenged the appellant to come to a halt and prevented the flight by seizing his cycle.
- The appellant then pulled out a knife and delivered a stab hit near the right elbow, before setting the cycle aside and fleeing. Many others joined in the chase of the fleeing appellant.
- They were shouting that the appellant should be detained. Bhimsen Mehta (P. W. 1) and his son Naresh Kumar, a young boy of approximately 18 years, were standing near a Pan Shop on the Ashok Marg when the appellant emerged from the Narhi Galla Mandi alley brandishing a knife and began sprinting on the Ashok Marg in the direction of the Narang Building.
- The pursuers’ cry was heard by Naresh Kumar, who went to apprehend him, but the appellant hit him with his knife and stabbed him in the belly, then repeated the blow and stabbed him in the buttock.
- For the time being. Bhimsen Mehta and those chasing the appellant arrested him, but not before delivering a barrage of blows to incapacitate him from fleeing further. Naresh Kumar was taken to the Civil Hospital by A. N. Das (P. W. 5). Bhimsen Mehta dictated his F. I. R. to Sant Bux Singh (P. W. 4), who then put the appellant and numerous others into custody. the knife Ext. 1 recovered from him. to police station Hazratganj, where Bhimsen Mehta got his F. I. R. registered at 5-20 P. M.
Issues:
- Whether Appellant Abdul Habib conviction and sentence is valid for the commission of the offence?
Contention of the Appellant:
- He was passing through the Galla Mandi in Narhi on his way back from the cremation ground about 4-30 or 5 p.m. when he observed a fight between two factions. He stood there as a bystander, but the groups accused him of being one of the marpit’s perpetrators, and he was beaten as a result. He fled to his heels to rescue himself, but the crowds gathered at the marpit chased him down, demanding that he should be jailed.
- The pursuers were armed with Dandas and knives. When he arrived to Ashok Marg, they and other pursuers apprehended him and began torturing him with Dandas and knives.
- The prosecution has examined Bhimsen Mehta. Raj Kumar Gulati and Ram Swarup P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as eyewitnesses and Sarwan Singh (P. W. 13) to prove the circumstances in which the appellant had run away from Narhi Galla Mandi.
- Admittedly. Sarwan Singh did not file a police report about the stabbing he got. Dr. Kapur allegedly transported him to the Command Hospital, where his injuries were checked, but no injury report was produced. On February 28, more than a month after Naresh Kumar’s death, he was interviewed by the Investigating Officer.
- He also argued that while the witness stated in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he had only challenged the appellant to get off the bike and not to run away with it, he added to that in his statement in Court by saying that he had also caught hold of the cycle’s carrier.
- The learned Counsel for the appellant then claimed that the appellant had the right to private person defence, which extended even to the causation of death, and that, as a result, he had committed no offence.
Contention of Respondent:
- To begin with, he bears no animosity toward the appellant, and no indication was made to him that he harboured any malice or hostile animus toward him. The fact that the witness was transported to the Command Hospital and examined there is unimportant in the case of the appellant’s murder. Sarwan Singh is best described as a witness on a side issue in the case, namely, why the appellant was sprinting from Narhi Galla Mandi to Ashok Marg.
- The appellant made no attempt to refute this fact. He has acknowledged to being present at the Galla Mandi in so many words. He also acknowledged to running away from Galla Mandi and stepping into Ashok Marg. We see no reason why an unwitting bystander should be made the object of an unjustified attack. As he argues, there’s no reason for them to mistrust him just because he’s standing there.
- Sarwan Singh’s remark is more straightforward and acceptable. He is neither accused or even considered of having any bias or preference for the deceased’s relatives. As a result, we rely on his testimony and hold that the appellant stabbed Sarwan Singh within Galla Mandi, and that when he realised, he was about to be caught, he took to his fligt and flew to Ashok Marg. Inside Galla Mandi, he had committed two crimes: theft and causing bodily harm with a cutting tool, all of which were punishable under Sections 379 and 324, of the Indian Penal Code.
- The intention was to arrest the appellant on the spot and to take him to the police station, that is to say, to permit him to move only within the limits of the place of arrest and the police station, and not outside these Emits.
Judgement:
The Appeal was Dismissed.
The court concluded that in the present case, this appeal is rejected with prejudice, and the sentence imposed on the appellant is upheld. He is currently incarcerated and will serve the remainder of his sentence.
Conclusion:
The Apex Court dismissed the contentions of the Learned Counsel on the behalf of the Appellant that the right to private defence is subject to the limitations set forth in Section 99. No one has the right to inflict more pain than is required in a particular set of circumstances. Naresh Kumar had no weapons. He just intended to apprehend the appellant and not to harm him in any way.
In fact, he did not even injure anyone. Others were to blame for the injuries. In these circumstances, the Appellant had no right to draw his knife and deliver not one but numerous blows, resulting in fatal injuries. It’s not even a scenario where the Court can argue he had a right to private person defence but overstepped that right. The murder was a culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Drafted by: Sachika Vij, Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: November 09, 2021 at 14:52 IST