A recent legal case involving a land dispute resulted in a conviction under Section 304(ii) of the IPC. The court’s analysis highlighted factors such as lack of premeditation and the exercise of the right of private defense by the accused. This case sheds light on the complexities of legal battles and the importance of thorough legal analysis in ensuring justice is served.
Facts
- The Trial Court found that the de facto complainant’s family members were the aggressors and tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the accused.
- A Civil Suit was filed by the appellant in O.S.No.146 of 2010, leading to injunction orders in favor of the appellant.
- The appellant and family members were put in civil prison for 30 days for violating the court orders.
- A quarrel occurred in front of the appellant’s house between the families, resulting in injuries to female family members of the appellant.
- The dispute on the date of occurrence (13.06.2010) was over a cart track from the accused’s land to reach the land of the complainant.
- The prosecution alleged the accused tried to block the cart track by putting a fence.
- The appellant claims the complainant tried to lay a new cart track from the appellant’s land.
- Appellant stabbed the deceased, Kamsala with a knife without premeditation or pre-planning in a sudden quarrel.
- Appellant exercised his right of private defence but exceeded the limit.
- High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 304(ii) of IPC and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000.
- Appellant was the sole convict among four accused persons tried for various charges under IPC and SC/ST Act.
- The other accused persons were acquitted of all charges.
- The incident took place in the context of a pending Civil Suit between the parties regarding land dispute.
Also Read: Analyzing Legal Defects in Arbitral Awards
Arguments
- The appellant exercised his right of private defense during a sudden quarrel.
- No steps were taken to prosecute the family of the complainant despite injuries caused to the family members of the appellant.
- The appellant’s family members were provoked to retaliate after being assaulted by the complainant’s family members.
- The Trial Court found that the complainant’s family members were aggressors, and there was no premeditation or pre-planning in the incident.
- Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the modification of sentence.
- Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Court in the case of Ram Pyare Mishra v. Prem Shanker and Ors.
- In the cited judgment, the accused was convicted for an offence under Section 304(I) of the IPC and sentenced to eight years.
- The decision on the quantum of sentence is based on factors such as the background facts of the case, the antecedents of the accused, and whether the assault was premeditated or not.
Analysis
- The incident occurred in front of the accused’s house, leading to a retaliation by the appellant against the complainant’s family members.
- There was a dispute over a pathway that the complainant’s family members were claiming from the accused’s land.
- The accused filed a Suit and obtained injunction orders from the Civil Court to address the dispute.
- Despite the Court orders, the complainant’s family members were put behind bars for 30 days, as per the deposition of PW-1.
- Trial Court recorded that the de facto complainant’s family members were the aggressors
- Trial Court also found that the incident was not premeditated or preplanned, but happened in a sudden quarrel
- The findings of the Trial Court became final as they were not questioned by the State or the complainant
- Based on these findings and relevant judgments, the sentence was modified to meet the ends of justice
Decision
- Confirmation of conviction under Section 304(ii) of the IPC
- Modification of sentence to two years’ rigorous imprisonment
- Imposition of a fine of Rs.5,000/-
- In default of fine payment, three months’ rigorous imprisonment
- Partial allowance of the appeal
Case Title: GOVINDAN Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (2021 INSC 915)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001665-001665 / 2021
