Case – Kishan v. State of M.P., 1974
Case Summary
| Citation | Kishan v. State of M.P., 1974 |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | There was a dispute regarding the use of bricks. There were four brothers, Kishan, Damrulal, Ganesh & Har Charan. On May 4, 1968, Damrulal went to the house of Bucha. Bucha was supervising foundation-digging near his house. Damrulal warned Bucha to abstain from using bricks belonging to him. Bucha replied that he was using his own bricks. Then, there was an exchange of hot words between them. Thereafter Damrulal left the place angrily after giving a warning to Bucha that he would soon settle the score. Four brothers reached the home of Bucha. Bucha was dragged out of his house. There he was given a beating by fists and kicks by Kishan and his three brothers. Bucha contrived to extricate himself from their grip and picked up a Khutai lying nearby. He gave three blows on the head of Har Charan with the Khutai. Har Charan fell down to the ground and became unconscious. Thereafter, Kishan and his remaining two brothers, Ganesh and Damrulal, caught hold of Bucha. The appellant snatched the Khutai from the hand of Bucha and gave two or three blows to his head. Bucha fell down on the ground and became unconscious. Later, Har Charan and Bucha died. Kishan, Damarula and Ganesh were prosecuted for causing the murder of Bucha. |
| Issues | Whether Kishan caused death of Bucha in the exercise of ‘Right of Private Defence’? Whether Kishan had caused the murder of Bucha? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | The Court found that on the basis that the appellant along with his three brothers, Ganesh, Damrulal and Har Charan, went to the house of Bucha, and pulled him out of his house up to the neem tree and there subjected him to punching and kicking. So, they were aggressors. They took the law in their own hands. Bucha contrived to escape from their grip, caught hold of the khutai and struck three blows on the head of Har Charan. Bucha was then acting in the exercise of the right of self-defence. Therefore, he was not an aggressor. The appellant could not claim to have beaten Bucha in the exercise of the right of self-defence. Dr. S. N. Banerji, who did the autopsy on the dead body of Bucha has deposed: With these injuries, death was inevitable. This medical opinion clearly brings the appellant’s case within the purview of Section 300, the third clause. The right of Private defence is not available for an aggressor. So, the High Court is right in convicting him under Section 302 I.P.C. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. |
| Judgement | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
To do
