Holding

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the genesis of the incident and the accused were entitled to the right of private defence, so the convictions under Sections 302, 148 and 326 IPC were set aside.

Summary

The case involved two cross‑FIRs arising from a violent clash in Simultand village where the deceased Nagender Nath Das was killed and several others injured. The complainant alleged that the accused assaulted him and his relatives, while the accused claimed they acted in self‑defence against the deceased’s alleged attempt to outrage a woman’s modesty. The trial court and the High Court convicted the accused under sections 302, 148, 326 and related IPC provisions, but the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the genesis of the incident, the formation of a common object, or that the accused were the aggressors. The Court noted serious investigative lapses, non‑production of the station diary, and the non‑examination of the investigating officer, and held that the plea of private defence was viable. Consequently, the convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted and released.

Issues considered

The prosecution’s burden to prove the formation of a common object and that the accused were the aggressors under sections 302, 148, 326 IPC.
Whether the accused were entitled to the right of private defence under Sections 96‑100 IPC.
Whether the investigation was conducted in a fair manner, including the non‑examination of the investigating officer and non‑production of the sanha.
The adequacy of the prosecution’s evidence to explain the injuries sustained by the accused.
The applicability of the principle that a conviction for murder cannot stand where a free fight or self‑defence is plausible.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 107
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 105
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 100, s. 105, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 323, s. 324, s. 326, s. 342, s. 96, s. 97, s. 98, s. 99

Subjects

private defenceunlawful assemblymurderinvestigation lapsesIndian Penal Codeacquittalcriminal appeal

Judgment

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 420
e
:-
•,

A RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS.
v. -,,
STATE OF JHARKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 2p20 of 2008)

DECEMBER 12,' 2008
B
[S. 8. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

- Penal Code, 1Bf0-ss. 302, 148 and 326 - Prosecutkm
for causing death. o one and causing injuries to others -
c Cross-FIRs by complainant and accused parties - Accused
taking please of self-defence - Non-examination of
'::4
Investigating Officer - Non-production of Sanha regarding the
incident - Case at the instance of the accused persons still
pending before trial Court - Conviction of accused by Courts
below - On appeal, held: In view o~ the facts that prosecution
D
has not come out with genesis ol the occurrence and that
investigation was conducted in slipshod manner, and in view
'
--r-
of the conduct of the complainant party, conviction not justified \

- The case was required to be considered in the light of the
defence case - Accused were entitled to right of private
E defence - Hence, acquitted.
Two cross-FIRs were filed, one by the complainants
against the appellants-accused and the other by the
appellants-accused against the complainant party.
Allegation of the Complainant pty was that the accused
F assaulted complainant's father ( eceased) and his uncle
(PW-1), while they were sitting in: front of their house. The +
motive for the commission of offence was said to be "
objection by the deceased from creating nuisance by the
accused in front of their house. The accused persons in
G their FIR alleged that the deceased trespassed their
house and tried to outrage the modesty of a woman folk
of the house. When she raised alarm, the appellants came
~
to her rescue. They alleged that the deceased was armed
with 'tangi' wherewith he assaulted two of the appellants. ~

H 420

,~,
RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 421
~-

Deceased called all his family members and appellants A
were assaulted.
Prosecution was initiated against the .accused
persons u/ss. 302/149, 307/149, 326/147, 148 and 324, IPC.
Prosecution was also initiated against prosecution
witnesses (complainant party) u/ss. 147/149, 323/149 and B
342/149, IPC on the basis of FIR lodged by the accused
persons. The case against the complainant party is still
pending before trial court.
~
During trial, the Investigating Officer of the instant
case, who had recorded the 'fard beyan' of appellant-
accused No. 5, was not examined as witness. The
c
'sanha', recorded by PW17 on the basis of telephonic call
informing about the incident, was also not produced
before the Court. Trial court convicted accused 'R' und~r
Sections 302, 148, IPC; accused 'J' under Section 302, 148
and 326, IPC; accused 'K' and 'Rm' under Sections 326 D
and 148, IPC; accused 'S' and 'U' under Sections 148, IPC.
Appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by High
-\
Court. Hence the present appeal.
' Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The trial court as also the High Court, did E
not record any finding that all the accused persons
formed a common object. There was no premeditation on
the part of the accused. Two of the accused have been
found guilty u/ss. 302 and 148 IPC and other accused
under Sections 326 and 148 thereof. [Para 16] (435-D-E] .
F
2. The prosecution has not come out with the
-t
)'
genesis of the occurrence. It is not clear as to why both
the cases filed by the complainant party as well as the
accused persons were not taken up by the same court
one after the other and as to how a criminal case of the
year 1999 is still pending before trial court. [Para 16] (435- G
F]
3. The trial court as also the High Court appeared to
~ have proceed on the premise that as the appellants had
... not been able to prove their defence, and therefore, the
prosecution version should be accepted. The approach H
A
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

of the courts below was, thus, not correct. [Para 17] [435-
- ·v

G]
4. The investigation was carried out in a slipshod
manner. The FIR clearly showed that even before lodging
of the FIR, investigation had started. The inquest was
B conducted, bloodstained grass and soil had been seized
and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. [Para 17]
[435-H; 436-A]
5. The injured p~tsons rec~ived grievous injuries. It
was expected that they would be rendered some medical
help at the earliest. They were unconscious and, thus,
c they should have been sent for treatment to a nearby
hospital. The injured, however,' were sent to the private
clinic of P.W.11. Admittedly,, there is a Government
hospital, and a hospital of a Rublic Sector Undertaking
in which one of the injured wit.hesses was an employee.
D They, however, chose to go at a distance of 22 Kilometers
from the place of occurrence .and were admitted in the
clinic of P.W.11. If the prosecution case is correctthatthe ...._
dead body as a·lso the injured persons were brought to
the referral hospital, the same having been found to be
closed, the injured were admi:tted in the private nursing
E home, there was no reason as to why a police personnel
did not accompany them. [Paras 18, 8 and 19] [428-A-C;
436-B-C; 437-A-B]
6. It is also strange that neither the exact location of
Injury on the head of the eye.,witness (PW 1) was started
F nor description of the said injury had been furnished by
the Doctor. He was also not i:n a position to say whether +.
injury No. 3 was from the front or behind. According to
him all injuries could be caused by similar weapons. He,
in his injury report, even di<;I not mention the colour of
injury. [Para 19] [437-B-C]
G
7. Whereas all the other ,prosecution wi~nesses were
admitted in the hospital on the same day, P.W.7 is said to
I

have been admitted on the next day although he had ~
suffered a grievous injury. lt,'is not known whether he had
been given any medical aid or not. Statement of none of ~
H the witnesses was. recorded either on the day on which
•
"
.,,.;
RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 423

the occurrence had taken place or the day after. [Para 20] A
[437-C-D]
8. P.W.1 was examined after about twelve days after
the death. P.W.3 stated that he was examined after one
month. Statement of P.W.7 was also taken after a week.
[Para 21] [437-E] B ·
9. The Investigating Officer in a case of this nature
should have been examined. His examination by the
prosecution was necessary to show that there had been
a fair investigation. No site plan was prepared. There is
nothing on record to show as to the exact place where c
the occurrence had taken place. It is stated that the house
of the parties is divided by a road. If that be so, it was all
the more necessary to pin point the exact place of
occurrence to ascertain who was the aggressor. [Para
21] (437-E-G] D
10. The injuries suffered by two of the appellants
required to be noticed. The injuries on the appellants
being grievous in nature, the prosecution owed a duty
to explain the same. The High Court did not take serious
notice of the nature of injuries suffered by the appellants.
E
[Para 22 and 23] [437-H; 438-G-H]
Ayodhya Ram alias Ayodhya Prasad Singh and Ors. vs.
State of Bihar (1999) 9 SCC 139, distinguished
11. Out of seven eyewitnesses, P.W.7 was not
believed by the courts below. P.Ws 4 and 5 were not F
present exactly at the place of occurrence. They are said
to have witnessed only a part of the occurrence. All other
eyewitnesses were related to the deceased.
Furthermore, there was no enmity between the parties.
Only a case u/s. 107 Cr. P.C. was pendi.ng against them.
Even in respect thereof, no documentary evidence was G
brought on record to show as to when the said
proceeding was initiated and at whose instance. The
prosecution witnesses merely supported the prosecution
case that a death had taken place and two witnesses
suffered grievous injuries but it was absolutely necessary H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
e
~

A in the facts and circumstances 'of this case to show that
·the accused were the aggressors. It was for that reason "f
that genesis of the prosecution case must be held to
have grave significance. [Para 24] (439-A-D]
12. The very fact that the appellants had gone back
B to their house to come out with arms and caused injuries
on the person of the deceased and injured persons may
or may not be correct, b,ut even accepting th·e
prosecution case to be correct1 evidently the prose~ution
party also went to their house ~nd brought weapons from
c their house. If it is accepted; that the appellants were
armed with such deadly weapons, it must also be
accepted that the prosecution witnesses would also be
armed with such weapons. It is, inter alia, for this reason
the production of 'Sanha' entry was necessary. A mere
information received on phone by a Police Officer without
D any details as regards the id~ntity of the accused or the
nafu{e of injuries caused by, the victims as well as the
-+
name of the culprits may no~ be treated as FIR, but had \
the same been produced, the nature of information
received by the police officer would have been clear.
E [Para 25] (439-D-G]
13. If there was a free fight as observed by High
Court, which might have tak~n place and where both the
parties were armed with de~dly weapons and suffered
injuries, all the appellants co,uld not have been convicted
F under Section 302 IPC. The entire case should have been _,
viewed by the courts below from that angle. The case
"(
was required to be considered in the light of the defence
case. (Para 26] [440-E-F]
14.1. The plea of the appellants as regards exercise
G ot'the right of private defen~e has been negatived by the
High Court only on the ground that the right to private
defence had ceased immediately after the deceased had
__}-
retreated from their house. But what has not been
considered is the cause causan of the incident. Whether ....
H the outraging of modesty of a female member of the family

-
RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 425

of the accused was the reason giving rise to the A
~ occurrence is a question which should have been
considered. If that be so, it was for the prosecution to
prove that attempt on the part of the appellants to cause
injuries was not as a result of previous enmity but for a
different purpose. [Para 27] [440-H; 441-A-B] B
14.2. If the allegations made in the FIR that the
appellants were drunk was correct, it was obligatory on
the part of the P.W.17 and consequently the Investigating
-- Officer to get the said fact established. Medical evidence
does not suggest the same. This aspect of the matter was c
not brought to the notice of the Doctor treating the
accused. There were, thus, two versions. Both were
probable and if that be so, the plea of exercise of right of
private defence raised by the appellant deserved serious
consideration. [Para 27] [441-C-D]
D.
14.3. There was no material brought on records to
· -i show that the appellants were the aggressors. If
' everything had happened within a short span of time as
is alleged by the prosecution, it was also necessary for
the prosecution to prove as to how accused persons
received injuries. It is now a well settled pfinciple of law E
that the accused can show that they were entitled to
exercise right of private defence from the materials on
records brought by the prosecution. The appellants were
entitled to exercise their right of private defence. [Par~s
28 and 33] (441-E-F; 445-D-E] F
, i·
Chanan Singh vs. State of Punjab [(1979) 4 SCC 399;
"' Bishna Alias Bhiswadeb Mahato and Ors. vs. State of W.B.
, (2005)12 SCC 657 and Surendra and Anr. vs. State of
Maharashtra (2006) 11 SCC 434, relied on.
Case Law Reference: G'
(1999) 9 sec 139 Distinguished. Para 23
+ c2005) 12 sec 657 Relied on. Para 29
(1979) 4 sec 399 Relied on. Para 29
(2006) 11 sec 434 Relied on. Para 30 H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2020 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.9.2006 of the High
Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal Nos. 401, 249,
199 and 177 of 2000.
B Anand, D. Bharat Kumar, Azim .·H. Laskar, Abhijit Sengupta
and M. lndrani Appellants.
Ratan Kumar Chaudhuri for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c S.8. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellants and one Raghu Manjhi, since deceased,
along with four others were tried for commission of offences
under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 326/147/148/324 and 326 )

of the Indian Penal Code.
D 3. The occurrence is said to have taken place on or about
31.10.1997 at about 2.00 p.m. at village
I
Simultand within the
jurisdiction of Chandan Kiyari (Bangaria Assistant Thana)
Police station in the district of Bokqro. First Information Report
(FIR) in relation to the said incid~nce is said to have been
E recorded at 3.45 p.m. in the complc;linant's (Suresh Kumar Das,
P.W.10) house. In the FIR, it was ,alleged by the complainant
that when his father Nagender Nath Das (deceased) and uncle
Manpuran Das were sitting in front of their house after taking
meal, he heard a noise (hulla) whereupon he came out and saw
F Ravishwar Manjhi, son of Serda Manjhi armed with 'iron tenta',
Jaleshwar Manjhi, son of Veda Manjhi armed with 'tangi', Kala
Chand Manjhi, son of Serda Manjhi, Santu Manjhi son of
Balesar Manjhi armed with 'bhala', Raghu Manjhi son of late
Nakul Manjhi armed with 'bhala' and Umakant Rajak armed with
'bhala' were assaulting his father and uncle. He raised an alarm
G whereupon his other uncle Gour Das came to rescue them.
1

Jaleshwar Manjhi assaulted him also with a 'tangi' as a result
of which he had received an injury on the palm of his right hand.
Manpuran Das, his uncle sustained I
injuries on his left armpit,
on left knee joint and on the left side of the head. Jaleshwar
H Manjhi caused tangi blow to his father.
RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 427
[S.B. SfNHA, J.]

When he wanted to take his father with him then Ravishwar A
~
Manjhi pierced iron tenta (ballam) pn the right side of the back
of his father and fled away. The motive for commission of
offence was stated to be objection by his father from creating
nuisance by the accused in front of their house. In the FIR, it
was said to have been recorded that the dead body of B
Nagender Nath Das was lying on the road and Gour Das was
lying in injured condition and Puran Das was lying in the state
of unconsciousness.
~
4. P.W.17-Shankar Ram AS.I., however, stated that on the
said date he had received a phone call informing him that a c
fight was going on at village Simultand. On the basis of the said
information, he recorded a 'Sanha' and proceeded towards the
place of occurrence. However, admittedly, the said 'Sanha' has
not been produced. He, furthermore, did not disclose as to from
whom he received the information.
D
5. Indisputably, another fard-beyan of Ravishwar Manjhi
(accused No.5) was recorded by one Alok Kumar, the
i
Investigating Officer of the present case. He, however, had not
been examined by the prosecution.
6. Both the Fl Rs were lodged at about 10.15 p.m. in the
E
Chandankiyari Police Station. Whereas FIR No. 104 was
recorded against the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 149,
323, 324, 326, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, FIR No.
105 was registered against the complainant party under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 342, 448 and 354 of the
Indian Penal Code . F
.,._
.

)>. 7. The case of the appellants as stated in the said FIR No.
105 lodged by the accused No. 5 is that the deceased had
trespassed into his house and tried to outrage the modesty of
Chinta Muni Majhian, wife of his younger brother and when she
raised alarm, appellants tried to save her. The deceased, G
however, was armed with a tangi wherewith he assaulted on
both the appellants. He called all his family members who also
+ were armed with lethal weapons. Appellants were assaulted
causing injuries to them. The injuries sustained by the appellants
Ravishwar Manjhi and Jaleshwar Manjhi were examined by the H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
e
A SHO Chandankiyari Police Station. He prepared injury reports
of the appellants and sent them to the hospital for further
--f..
treatment.
8. The injured, however, were sent to the private clinic of
P.W. 11 - Dr. Ratan Kejriwal. Admittedly, at Chandankiyari there
B is a government hospital. It is alsd not in dispute that there is a
hospital of Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), a public sector
undertaking at Amlabad in which one of the injured witnesses
was an employee. .+-
They, however, chose to go to village Chas which is at a
c distance of 22 kilometers from the place of occurrence and were
admitted in the clinic of P.W.11.
Post-mortem was conducted on 1.11.1997 at about 11.30
a.m. in the Sadar Hospital, Bokaro by Dr. Avinash Kumar
....
Chaudhary (P.W. 12). The injuries observed by him in his post-
D mortem report on the deceased were as under:
"(i) incised wound 5" x 1, 1/2" x cranial cavity deep on
the left side of the forehead obliquely placed and \.-
extending to the right parietal region of the scalp
with obvious commuted fracture of frontal bone on
E the left side;
(ii) Abrasion 2 1/2" x 1 1/2" over front of left shoulder
wrist;
(iii) Abrasion 1 1/2" x 1/2" over left shoulder;
(iv) Penetrating wound with sharp margins 1 1/2" x 1/
F
4" x 5" deep over the right renal area 1" away from
the L2 spine -¥
!'(
(v) On dissection, the dei>ctor had found the cranial vault
fractured and the margins and brain matter were
torn, lacerated and 'contused over the left asterior
G half extending to, the right he_misphere; The
penetrating would was 5" deep and in its area had
lace~ated right kidney bodily through out its breadth.
-+-
It had also perforpted the peritoneum and the
ascending column of the large gut and part of the
H small intestine. The soft tissue and pours of the
RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 429
[S.S. SINHA, J.]

aforesaid would was lacerated. The abdominal A
-1 cavity was filled with blood clots, faecal matter and
other intestinal material.
The doctor had further observed that an iron rod with a
spear shaped head with two spikes (tenta) was found stuck in
the body which he had removed and handed over to the B
constable. In the opinion of the doctor, the death occurred due
to injury no. (iv), which was caused by a sharp weapon and due
to cardiac respiratory failure on account of the internal and
external hemorrhage and injury to the vital organs like brain,
kidney and intestine. c
9. In both the cases, chargesheets were filed on
31.12.1997.
The following charges were framed against the accused
under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 326/147, 148, 324 l.P.C. on
23.4.1994 by Additional District & Sessions Judge, llnd Bokaro D
at Chas, which read as under:
·-'t
"FIRST - That you, on or about the 31st day of October
97 at 2 pm at village Simultand P.S. Chandankiyari, Distt.
Bokaro all of you in furtherance of common object did
commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the E
death of Nagendra Nath Das and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 302/149 of the Indian
Penal code, and within my cognizance.
SECONDLY- That you, on or about the same date of same
time at s~me place all of you in furtherance of common F
·1-
> object did (sic) act it namely assaulted with deadly
weapons with such intention or knowledge under such
circumstances, that if by that act you had caused the death
of Manpuran Das @ Puran Chandra Das and (2) Gour Das
you would have been guilty of murder and thereby G
committed an offence punishable Section 307/149 of the
Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance.
i--
THIRDLY- That you, on or about the same date of same
~

time at same place voluntarily caused grievous hurt to (1)
Manpuran Das @ Puran Chandra Das and (2) Gour Das H
430 SUPREME COURT REP'ORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A by means of Tangi which is a'n instrument for cutting and
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 1-
326 of.the Indian Penal Cod~. and within my cognizance.
FOURTHLY- That you, on or about the 31st day of October
1997 at 2 pm at village Simultand P.S. Chandankiyari,
B Distt. Bokaro all of you were a member of unlawful
assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the
1

said assembly committed the bffence of rioting and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section 147 of the
Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance.
c FIFTHLY - That you, on or ~bout the same date of same
time at same place were a member of unlawful assembly
and did in prosecution of the common object of that
assembly commit the offence, of rioting and at that time you
were armed with a deadly weapons namely, Tanta, Tenta
D (Ballam), Shala etc. and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code,
and within my cognizance.
SIXTHLY- That you, on or about the same date of same
time at same place voluntarily caused hurt to (1) Manpuran
E Das @ Puran Chandra Das and (2) Gour Das by means
of Tangi which is an instrument for cutting and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section 324 of the
Indian Penal code, and within my cognizance."
Indisputably, charges were also framed against the
F prosecution witnesses under Sections 147/149, 323/149, and
342/149 respectively by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, -1-
Chas, Bokaro on 12.7.1999, wh'ich read as under: :,.
"FIRST- That you, on or about the 31st day of October
1997 at village Simultand P.S. Chandankiyari, Distt.
G Bokaro being a member of an unlawful assembly
committed rioting in the prosecuti9ri of common object of
an unlawful assembly and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 147/149 of the Indian Penal +
Code, and within my cognizance.
'
SECONDLY- That you, on or about the same day of same
H
RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 431
\ [S.B. SINHA, J.]
.,.
at same voluntarily caused hurt to informant Ravishwar A
Manjhi and his younger brother Jaleshwar Manjhi in the
• prosecution of common object of an unlawful assembly and
thereby committed an offence punishable Section 323/149
of the Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance.
THIRDLY- That you, on or about the same day of same at B
same wrongfully confined to informant and his younger
brother in the prosecution of common object of an unlawful
assembly and thereby committed an offence punishable
' ii.
under Section 342/149 of the Indian Penal Code, and
within my cognizance." c
10. Both the cases were taken up for hearing by different
~
courts. It is, however, stated that the cases lodged by the
accused persons is still pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Bokaro.
11. Before the learned Sessions Judge, Seventeen D
witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1-
..;
Manpuran Das, P.W.7-Parmeshwar Das, and P.W. 9-Gour Das
were injured witnesses. P.W. 2- Rajan Das (Pradeep Kumar
Das), P:W. 3-Dhaneshwar Das (Dhona Das), P.W. 6
Khagendra Nath Das, P.W. 8-Neelam Devi and P.W. 10-Suresh E
Kumar Das (Informant) were said to have witnessed the
occurrence. P.W. 4 Chinta Haran Das and P.W. 5-Mantu Das
were also said to have witnessed a part of the occurrence.
P.W.11-Dr. Ratan Kejriwal in whose Nursing Home the
injured were admitted, P.W. 9 Gour Das and Puran Chand Das F
were admitted, P.W. 12- Dr. Avanish Kumar Choudhary, the
f
> Autopsy Surgeon, P.W. -16-Dr. P.S. Kashyap, who is said to
have examined Pa·rmeshwar Das (P.W. 7), P.W.17- Shankar
Ram, A.S.I. who had recorded the fatd~beyan of P.W. 10 and
conducted the inquest were also examined.
G
The Investigating Officer, however, was not examined.
Appellants also examined two defence witnesses, namely,,
+ Sahdeo Mahto (D.W. 1), a police constable for proving the fard-
'
r..._
,,.
beyan, FIR and charge-sheet filed against the complainant party
and Dr. Virendra Kumar (D.W.2) who had examined the H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R ·

A accused Ravishwar Manjhi and Jaleshwar Manjhi.
12. The learned trial judge did not place any reliance upon
the evidence oJ P.W. 7 Parmeshwar Das, who claimed himself
to be an injured eyewitness. '
I

The learned trial· judge further did not believe the allegation
B of giving a 'tangi' blow by Umakant Rajak on the head of
Manpuran Das. It was, however, held that Jaleshwar Manjhi had
caused grievous injury by a 'sharp weapon' on the left palm of
Gour Das and Raghu Manjhi caused grievous injury on the left
knee joint by a 'sharp weapon' to Manpuran Das ahd the
C accused Kala Chand Manjhi also caused grievous injury on the
left scapula of Manpuran Das by, a 'sharp weapon'. Accused
Jaleshwar Manjhi was found to have been assaulted the
deceased by giving severe blow by 'tangi' on the head causing
fracture of the frontal bone and 1 the brain matter was torn.
0 Ravishwar Manjhi pierced Tenta 'in the back of the deceased.
I

On the basis of the aforeme.ntioned finding, the accused
persons were convicted and the following sentences were
imposed:
1

Name of accused Convicted Sentence awarded
E under Sectipn
Ravishwar Manjhi 302, 148 l.P.C. Life impriscmment and
2 years RI respectively.
I

Jaleshwar Manjhi 302, 148 &, 326 Life imprisonment and
l.P.C. 2 yrs. RI and 5 yrs. RI
F respectively
Kala Chand Manjhi .326 and 148 5 yrs. RI and 2 yrs. RI
l.P.C. respectively
Raghu Manjhi 32~ and 148 5 yrs. RI and 2 yrs. RI
l.P.C. respectively
G
Santu Manjhi 148 l.P.C. 2 yrs RI
• Uma Kant Rajak 148 l.P.C. ' 2 yrs. RI
13. The High Court by rea~on of the impugned judgment
+
has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants herein.
H
RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 433
[S.8. SINHA, J.]
....
14. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, learned counsel appearing on A
behalf of the appellants would contend:
(i) The genesis and origin of the occurrence has been
suppressed by the prosecution.
(ii) The injuries on the person of the accused having
been denied, the prosecution witnesses must be B
held to be not reliable as they suppressed material
points.
(iii) Non-examination of the Investigating Officer has
caused serious prejudice to the accused.
Actual place of occurrence, namely, whether it was
c
(iv)

-· in front of the house of the appellant Jaleshwar
Manjhi or in front of the house of the deceased, has
not been firmly established.
(v) The prosecution having not sent the blood stained D
earth which was collected by P.W.17 for chemical
examination, .the defence version must be held to
...;· have been proved .
(vi) The prosecution witnesses should not be believed
as inordinate delay was caused in obtaining their
E
statements.
(vii) The station diary (Sanha) on the' basis whereof P.W.

.... 17 was said to have reached the p:ace of
occurrence having not been produced, the
appellants were seriously prejudiced wherefor
F
adverse inference should be drawn.
,.
~
(viii) The materials brought on record cast a serious
doubt in regard to the time of recording of the fard-
beyan as investigation had commenced even on
the basis of the station diary, and thus the FIR was
G
inadmissible in evidence.
(ix) There was no reason for the injured to obtain
treatment from a private Hospital although there
+
.... was Government hospital near the place of
occurrence.
H
"'!"9

.......
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
.
[2008] 17 S.C.R.
e
RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 435
.,.., [S.B. SINHA, J.]
...
to Chas as it was found necessary that they receive A
treatment in the referral hospital at Chas and the
~
same having been found to be closed, the injured
were then admitted to the Nursing Home which was
at Chas.
(iv) The prosecution has proved the genesis of the 8
occurrence.
(v) The learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court
.
...... arrived at the finding of guilt of the accused, upon
proper analysis of the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and in that view of the matter the c
impugned judgment should not be interfered with.
(vi) Appellants had formed a common object on the
spot and in view of the nature of injuries inflicted on
the deceased as also on the injured persons,
prosecution must be held to have proved formation D
of the unlawful assembly.
;( 16. The learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court
>
did not record any finding that all the accused persons formed .
a common object.
There was no premeditation on the part of the accused. E
Two of the accused have been found guilty under Sections 302
and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and other accused under
Sections 326 and 148 thereof.
Mr. Sengupta may be correct in his submission that the
prosecution has not come out with the genesis of the F
i occurrence. We also do not know as to why both the cases
"' were not taken up by the same court one after the other. We
furthermore fail to understand as to how a criminal case of 1999
is still pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.
17. The learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court G
appeared to have proceeded on the premise that as the
appellants had not ~een able to prove their defence, and
1- therefore, the prosecution version should be accepted. The
~ approach of the courts below was, thus, not correct.
The investigation was carried out in a slipshod manner. The H

~
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
e
,,..
\;

A FIR clearly showed that even ,before lodging of the FIR,
investigation had started. The inquest was corrducted,
bloodstained grass and soil ha~ been, seized and the dead -+-
body was sent for post-mortem. 1

18. It is beyond anybody'$ comprehension that if the
B incident had taken place at about 2'0 clock and it took about
one and half hours for P.W. 17 tp reach the village Simultand,
how the FIR was recorded at ab?ut 3.45 p.m. while the inquest
report was prepared at about 4.05 p.m. and blood stained '-
grass and soil was seized at about 5.00 p.m. The injured ~'

c persons received grievous injuries. It was expected that they
would be rendered some medical help at the earliest. They
were unconscious and, thus, they should have been sent for
~
treatment to a nearby hospital. It was absolutely necessary that
at least some medical help is rendered to them.

D They reached Dr. Kejriwal's Nursing Home at ,about 7.00
p.m. The following injuries were noticed by P.W.11, in his own
words:
l.,.
"On Gour Das I found following injuries:
1. Incised wound in left palm 9 cm x 1 cm cutting or
E superficial (illegible)
2. Abrasion on left shoulder joint. Aged within 6 hours.
No. 1 by sharp instrument, 2nd by hard substance.
No.1 grievous in nature and 2 simple. r,.
On Puran Chand Das found following injuries:
F I

1. Lacerated wound pn scalp 5 cm x 0.6 cm x .5 cm
~
avulsing on muscl~s.
.--
2. Incised wound on (jllegible) left scapula .10 cm x 1.2
"!
cm.
G 3. Incised wound (ill~gible) left knee joint 8 cm x 10
cm. age within 6 h(s. Number one caused hard blunt ,
object and anoth,er by sharp instrument. All the
injuries are grievous the two injuries re in pen and +
signature Exh.4 and 4A. ,
I
?""""-
H In response to all the ~elevant questions, his standard
RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE 9F JHARKHAND 437
[S.B. SINHA, J.] [S.B. SINHA, J.]

answer was "I do not remember". A
~.
19. If the prosecution case is correct that the dead body
as also the injured persons were brought to the referral
hospital, the same having been found to be closed, the injured
were admitted in the Nursing Home, there was no reason as
to why a police personnel did not accompany them. It is also B
strange that neither the exact location of injury on the head of
the Pu ran Das was stated nor description of the said injury had
~·
been furnished by the Doctor. He was also not in a position to
say whether injury No. 3 was from the· front or behind. According
to him all injuries could be caused by similar weapons. He, in c
his injury report, even did not mention the colour of injury.
20. Whereas all the other prosecution witnesses were
admitted in the hospital on the same day, P.W. 7 is said to have
been admitted on the next day although he had suffered a
grievous injury. It is not known whether he had been given any D
medical aid or not. Statement of none of the witnesses was
,.-'t recorded either on the day on which the occurrence had taken
place or the day after.
21. P.W. 1 was examined after the 'Shradh Ceremony' of
deceased was over which would be about twelve days after the E
death. P.W. 3 stated that he was examined after one month.
Statement of P.W. 7 was also taken after he was discharged
from hospital, i.e., at least after a week.
The Investigating Officer in a case of this nature should
have been examined. His examination by the prosecution was F
,.i• necessary to show that there had been a fair investigation.
Unfortunately, even no site plan was prepared. There is nothing
on record to show as to the exact place where the occurrence
had taken place. It is stated that the house of the parties is
divided by a road. If that be so, it was all the more necessary
to pin point the exact place of occurrence to ascertain who was G
the aggressor.

-
--t
22. No doubt, a life is lost and two persons suffered
gri~vous injuries but we must also notice the injuries suffered

-- by \wo of the appellants as was disclosed by Dr. Virendra
H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A Kumar (D.W. 2) in his evidence. 1

"On 31.10.1997 I was posted at M.O. at Chandankiyari.
On that day at 9.30 p.m. I examined Ravishwar Manjhi s/o
Berga Manjhi P.S. Chandankiyari, District Bokaro and
found following injuries:
B (1) Incised wound 1 1/2'1 x 1/6" x 1/6" over left palm
ventrally below (illegible) of thumb by sharp cutting
substance.
(2) Scratches at four places over both sides of back
and upper portions due to sharp cutting instrument
c 6" and 5" ·
I

(3) Incised wound at two ·places over right palm
posteriorly 4" x 1/2" x 1" deep and 2" x 1/4" x 1~4..
by sharp cutting instrument.
(4) Age within 12 hours. '1 and 2 simple and 3 grievous.
D
On the same day I exa111inei:i Jaleshwar Manjhi, w/o Berga
Manjhi of same village and found following injuries. t•
(1) Incised wound at two places over head posterior
and interior by sharp cutting substance 3" x 1/2" x
E skin deep over top of
I
head posteriorly.
(2) 2" x 1/4" x skin deep over front head.
(3) · Complain of pain oh whole body without illegible.
Injury with 12 hours simple.
1
· ·
The patient Ravishwar Manjhi was referred for X-ray and
F on receipt of the report both injuries on palm were found
to be grievous.
23. The injuries being grievous in nature, the prosecution
owed a duty to explain the .same. ·
G It is unfortunate that the Jlligh Court did not take serious
notice of the nature of injuries suffered by the appellants, relying
on the decision of this Court in Ayodhya Ram alias Ayodhya
Prasad Singh and Ors. vs. StC1te of Bihar [( 1999) 9 SCC 139],
wherein only minor injuries were suffered by the accused
H persons.
., RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 439
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

24. Out of seven eyewitnesses, P.W. 7 was not believed A
by the courts below. P.Ws. 4 and 5 were not present exactly at
the place of occurrence. They are said to have witnessed only
a part of the occurrence. All other eyewitnesses were related
to the deceased. However, we do not hesitate to add that only
on that ground their evidences should not be disbelieved. B
Furthermore, there was no enmity between the parties.
Only a case un·der Secti~n 107 of the Code of Criminal
~
Procedure was pending against them. Even in respect thereof,
no documentary evidence was brought on record to show as
to when the said proceeding was initiated and at whose c
.... instance. The prosecution witnesses merely supported the
prosecution case that a death had taken place and two
witnesses suffered grievous injuries but it was absolutely
necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case to show
that the accused were the aggressors. It was for that reason
the genesis of the prosecution case must be held to have grave D
-+ significance.
• 25. The very fact that the appellants had gone back to their
house to come out with arms and caused injuries on the person
of the deceased and injured persons may or may not be
correct, but even accepting the prosecution case to be correct, E
evidently the prosecution party also went to their house and
,,. brought weapons from their house. If it is accepted that the
appeflants were armed with such deadly weapons, it must also
be accepted that the prosecution witnesses would also be
-r· armed with such weapons. It is, inter alia, for this reason the F
~ production of 'Sanha' entry was necessary. We are not oblivious
of the fact that a mere information received on phone by a
Police Officer without any details as regards the identity of the
accused or the nature of injuries caused by the victims as well
as the name of the culprits may not be treated as FIR, but had G
the same been produced, the nature of information received
by the poHce officer would have been clear. It is interesting to

-
-t
note that the High Court in its judgment recorded the following:
"The explanation given by the prosecution witnesses that
they could not notice the injuries, if any, on the person of H

~
440
e
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
~

A the above named appellants c>n account ofthe fact that they
themselves had sustained i~juries and one of thetr own
having sustained fatal injuries had died at the spot and the
assault continued hardly for less than five mfautes
whereafter the assailants ha,d fie~ away, appears to be a
B reasonable explanation as far as the injured witnesses are
. I

concerned. This, however, d9es not apply to the other eye
witnesses, since they had an opportunity .to see the entire
occurrence from the beginning to end. From the evidence
adduced by the prosecution and that by the defence, it
appears that both sides had indulged in a free fight with
c each other in course of which, members of both the
parties had sustained injuries. In the FIR of the counter ......
case instituted by the appellant Ravishwar Manjhi, a feeble
attempt to explain the injuries found on the person of the
members of the prosecution party has been made. It is
D contended that it was in exercise of right of private defence
by the appellants while resisting the advances made by the
deceased that some injuries may have been caused to the t-
·~
deceased and other members of his family."
26. If there was a free fight which might have taken place
E and where both the parties we~e ,armed with deadly weapons
and suffered injuries, all the appellants could not have been
convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The
entire case should have been viewed by the courts below from
that angle. The case was required to be considered in the light
F of the defence case. The High Court opined that the deceased -i.-
was accosted by the appellant, not in their house, but outside l

their house on the road is not a matter of moment, particularly ...
when the High Court itself recorded that house of the deceased
Nagender Nath Das and that of the appellant Ravishwar Manjhi
were opposite to each other with a road (alley) dividing the
G same. If the dead body was lying on the alley, it matters little
as to whether it was in front of the house of the appellant or the
' .
deceased. +·
27. The plea of the appel'lants as regards exercise of th~
right of private defence has been negatived by the High Court
,...
H

.,.,
RAVISHWAR MANJHI &'ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 441
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

-( only on the ground that the right to private defence had ceased p..

- .... immediately after the deceased had retreated from their house .
But what has not been considered is the causa causan of the
incident.
Whether the outraging of modesty of a female member of
the family of the accused was the reason giving rise to the B
occurrence is a question which should have been considered.
If that be so, it was for the prosecution to prove that attempt on
the part of the appellants to cause injuries was not as a result
of previous enmity but for a different purpose.
If the allegations made in the FIR that the appellants were d
drunk was correct, it was obligatory on the part of the P.W. 17
and consequently the Investigating Officer to get the said fact
established. Medical evidence does not suggest the same. rhis
aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice of the Doctor
treating the accused. There were, thus, two versions. Both were D, '

probable and if that be so, the plea of exercise of right of private
--; defence raised by the appellant deserved serious
consideration.
28. There was no material brought on records to show that
the appellants were the aggressors. If everything had happened E
within a short span of time as is alleged by the prosecution,
namely, the appellants were causing nuisance which was
'
~.
objected to by the deceased; they went to their respective
houses; came armed and started assaulting the deceased and
·other injured persons, it was also necessary for the prosecution
I i to prove as to how accused persons received injuries. It is now F
a well settled principle of law that the accused can show that
""
they·were entitled to exercise right of private defence from the
~ materials on records brought by the prosecution.
I
29. The places where the injuries had been inflicted also
assume significance. If the prosecution witnesses are to be G
-!
believed, the first injury was caused on hand. It was thereafter
"1 injuries were caused on other parts of the person of the
prosecution witnesses and the last injury was caused by 'tenta' .
..,
...
In Chanan Singh vs. State of Punjab [(1979) 4 SCC 399,
H

--\
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
e
A this Court held:
".It is true that the defence case al,so has not been accepted r
by the High Court but once there is a probability of the '
accused having acted in self-defence, that is sufficient to
entitle him to an acquittal."
B In Bishna Alias Bhiswadeb Mahato & ors. vs. State of
WB. [(2005) 12 sec 657], this Court noticed that a right of
private defence need not specifically be taken and in the event ~
the court on the basis of the materials placed on record is in a
position to come to such a conclusion, the court may act
c thereupon. It was held:
"74. 'Right of private defence' is ,not defined. Nothing is an
offence in terms of Section 96 ofthe Indian Penal Code,
if it is done in exercise of ther right of private defence.
Section 97 deals with the subject matter of private defence.
D The plea of right ·of private defence comprises the body
or property. It, however, extends not only to 19erson
.....
· exercising the right; but to any other person. The right may \.
be exercised in the case of any offence against the body
and in the case of offences of theft, robbery, mischief or
E criminal trespass and attempts at such offences in relation
to property. Sections 96 and 98 confer a right of private
defence against certain offences and acts. Section 99 lays
down the limit therefor. The rigHt conferred upon a person ,.
in terms of Section 96 to 98 and I
100 to 106 is controlled
by Section 99. In terms of Section .99 of the Indian Penal
F Code, the right of private defe~ce, in no case, extends to ~
I

inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the .,,.
do
putpose of defence. Section 1 provides that the rigtit of
private defence of the body ext13nds under the restrictions
mentioned in the last precedi11g section to the voluntary
G causing of death or of any oth,er harm to the assailant if
the offence which occasions tl:le '
exercise
.
of the right be
of any of the descriptions enumerated therein, namely, + '
"First - Such an assault, as may reasonably cause the ,,
app'rehension that death , will otherwise be the
;:.,
H consequence of such assault; Secondly - Such an assault
RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 443
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous A
hurt will otherwise be.the consequence of such assault".
To claim a right of private defence extending to voluntary
causing of death, the accused must show that there were
Circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for
apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be B
caused to him. The burden in this behalf is on the accused."
30. Yet again in Surendra & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
~ [(2006) 11 SCC 434], this Court held:
"26. We .are not unmindful of the fact that in all
circumstances injuries on the person of the accused need c
not be explained but a different standard would be applied
in a case where a specific plea of right of private defence
has been raised. It may be true that in the event prosecution
discharges its primary burden of proof, the onus would shift
on the accused but the same would not mean that the '

0
burden can be discharged only by examining defence
-~-
witnesses.
J ,.....
27. The learned courts below committed a manifest error
of law in opining that the Appellants had not discharged
the initial burden which is cast on them. Even such a plea
need not be specifically raised. The Courts may only see
E

... \
as to whether tile plea of exercise of private defence was
probable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
32. In regard to the duty of t~e prosecution to explain the
injuries on the part of the accused, this Court observed: F
.,.1' '78. Section 105 of the. Eiliaence Act casts the
burden of proof on the accused who sets up the
plea of self-defence and in the absence of proof, it
may not be possible for the court to presume the
correctness or otherwise of the said plea. No
G
positive evidence although is required to be
adduced by the accused; it is possible for him to
~
prove the said fact by eliciting the necessary
materials from the witnesses examined by the
....' prosecution. He can establish his plea also from the
H
444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A attending circumstances, 'as may transpire from the
evidence led by the pros~cution itself.
79. In a large number of cases, this Court, however,
has laid down the law that a person who i.~
apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh
1

B in golden scales on the spur of the moment and in
the heat of circumstanc~s. the number of ·injuries..
I .

required to disarm the assailants who were armed
with weapons. In moments of excitement and
disturbed equilibrium it is often difficult to exp11ct the
c parties to preserve composure and use exactly only
so much force in retaliatiqn commensurate with the
danger apprehended to him where assault is
imminent by use of fore~. All circumstances are
required to be viewed with pragmat(sin :and any ,
hypertechnical approachrshould be ~voided.
D
80. To put it simply, if a ~efence is rnade o'ut, the
accused is entitled to be acquitted· aAd ·if not he will
be convicted of murde~. But in c~ae of use of
t
excessive force, he would be convicted under
Section 304 IPC." :
E
31. In Satya Narain Yadav v. Gajanand & Anr. raooe(10) I

SCALE 728], this Court held:
"14. As noted in Butta Singh v. The State of Punjqb (AIR.
1991 SC 1316), a person who i~ apprehending death 't>r"
bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales in the s1mri.of
F
moment and in the heat of circumstances, the numbef of
injuries required to disarm the assailants who were armed
with weapons. In moments of excitement and disturbed
mental equilibrium it is often difficult to expect the parties
to preserve composure and use exactly only so much force
G in retaliation commensurate with the danger apprehended
1

to him where assault is imminent by use of force, it would
be lawful to repel the force in self-defence and the right of +
private defence commences, as soon as the threat
becomes so imminent. Such' situations have to be
H pragmatically viewed and ~ot with high-powered
RAVISHWAR MANJHI & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 445
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
~,

spectacles or microscopes to detect slight or even A
marginal overstepping. Due weightage has to be given to,
... and hyper technical approach has to be avoided in
considering what happens on the spur of the moment on
the spot and keeping in view normal hum'an reaction and
conduct, where self-preservation is the paramount 8
consideration. But, if the fact situation shows that in the
guise of self-preservation, what really has been done is to
assault the original aggressor, even after the cause of
!:- reasonable apprehension has disappeared, the plea of
right of private-defence can legitimately be negatived. The
Court dealing with the plea has to weigh the material to
c
conclude whether the plea is acceptable. It is essentially,
•
' as noted above, a finding of fact."
32. We may notice that the learned Sessions Judge, while
examining Jaleshwar Manjhi, did not put any question to him
as to whether he had killed the deceased or assaulted anybody. D
33. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion,
-+-
)i
that it is possible for the court to arrive at the conclusion that
the appellants were entitled to exercise their right of private
defence. The appeal is allowed. Ravishwar Manjhi (accused
No. 5), Jaleshwar Manjhi (accused No. 6) and Kala Chandra E

.. Manjhi (acused No.3) who are in custody are directed to be set
at liberty and released forthwith unless wanted in connection
with any other case .
The bail bonds of Santu Manjhi (accused No. 4) and
Umakant Rajak (accused No. 1) shall stand discharged.
F,
-t
,'t K.K.T. Appeal allowed.
..

+

- !