Decided On: 14 December, 1978
Petitioner:Mohinder pal jolly
Respondent: State of Punjab
Equivalent Citations:
1979 AIR 577,
1979 SCR (2) 805,
1979 SCC (3) 30
Case Type:
Right To Private Defence
Bench:
Untwalia, N.L.
Petitioner lawyer
Mr. A. N. Mulla
Respondent lawyer
Mr. Hardev Singh
Mr. Harbans Singh
Mr. Faqir Chand
Statutes:
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Facts:
- The appellant (MOHINDER PAL JOLLY) was running a factory at Jullundur and on account of non-availability of raw-materials the factory remained closed for a fortnight from the 14th to 28th September, 1967 resulting in lay-off of the workmen.
- A dispute arose between the management and the workmen in regard to the payment of wages for the period aforesaid
- A settlement was arrived at through the intervention of the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Jullundur with the conclusion that they were to be paid their wages for the period of lay-off.
- They accordingly went to the appellant on 7th October, 1967 for demanding the wages. The appellant is said to have told them that the same would be paid on the 11th October
- On this date again they went to the factory and sent P.W. Mota Singh to demand wages from the appellant. He asked him to go away. Mota Singh came out and passed on the information to the workers present outside the factory premises, who, amongst others, included Sant Ram, the deceased, Darshan Singh, P.W. 4 and Gurcharan Singh, P.W. 5.
- According to the prosecution case the workers then started raising innocuous slogans demanding their wages and did nothing else.
- Thereupon the appellant opened the door of his office and fired a shot from his revolver towards the workers who were raising slogans. The shot hit on the forehead of Sant Ram who fell down and died instantaneously at the spot.
- The occurrence took place at 2.00 p.m. on the 11th October, 1967. A First Information Report was lodged at the Thana at 2.15 p.m., on the written report of Mota Singh, P.W. 2, Shadi Lal, P.W. 13.
- According to petitioner case apprehending imminent danger to his life and in exercise of the right of private defence of property and person, Bansi Lal, the appellant’s driver fired the shot from the revolver and not he
Issues Involved:
- Whether appellant fired the gun or his driver (Bansi Lal).
Petitioner’s Arguments-
- Mr. A. N. Mulla appearing for the appellant submitted that he was not challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below that it was the appellant who had fired the shot from his revolver and not his driver.
- according to his submission, he was forced to do so apprehending imminent danger to his life or of grievous hurt to him and the shot was fired not only to defend his property.
- He was, therefore, in exercise of that right, entitled to and justified in law in using force even to the extent of causing the death of Sant Ram, although he never intended to kill anyone.
- It was further submitted that the workmen were the aggressors. They had thrown brick-bats even inside the office damaging the office table glass; had collected in large numbers outside the boundary wall; had broken the barbed wire on it and some of them were trying to scale down the wall. In such a situation the appellant was not expected to act like a coward and run from the place, but he had a right to defend his property and person.
- In any view of the matter, counsel submitted, that the case did not come under clause ‘4thly’ of section 300 or even if it falls within that provision, on the application of Exception 2 he could only be convicted under Part-II of section 304 and not Part-I. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, counsel submitted, that the sentence imposed upon him is highly excessive and even if his conviction is maintained justice demands only an imposition of fine on him under section 304 Part-II.
Respondents’ Arguments-
- Mr. Hardev Singh appearing for the State endeavoured to show that the labourers were justified in demanding their wages for the layoff period;
- They did nothing which could give any right of private defence to the appellant either of his property or person
- He could escape from his office for his safety or would have taken recourse to the protection of the public authorities
- Counsel further submitted that the appellant was not at all justified in causing the death of Sant Ram by his revolver and his conviction recorded under section 304 Part-I is correct and the sentence is not at all excessive
Judgement:
The Judgment of Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J.-The appellant in this appeal by special leave was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur under section 304 Part-I,Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to two years’ further rigorous imprisonment. The fine, if recovered, was directed to be paid to the dependants of the deceased in equal shares.
The appellant filed a criminal appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against his conviction and sentence. The State also filed an appeal and the widow of the deceased filed a revision in the High Court for convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Penal Code instead of section 304 Part-I. The High Court dismissed both the appeals as also the revision. The appellant only has preferred this appeal in this Court.
Conclusion:
The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.” As to when the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death is provided for in section 100. In the view which we have expressed above we think that the appellant had not only the right of private defence of his properly but also his body to a limited extent within the meaning of section 101 subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 99.
GAURAV KUMAR