Nabia Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....in question, viz, the sugar factory, at all material times remained a business asset. acquisition of the interest of the other branch by the appellant did not alter the character or use of the asset; nor did it make any fundamental alteration in its value to the appellant so as wholly to displace its original value even in respect of its share which it continued to own. [654 b-d] the tribunal therefore, had rightly held that in respect of the 6/16th share of the other branch, depreciation had to be allowed to the appellant on the basis of the auction price. the high court wrongly interfered with this finding the revenue not having appealed against it. on the appellant's 10/16th share, which the appellant could not be said to have purchased, depreciation had to be calculated on the..........to invite trouble and the appellant was not armed.2. we have heard the learned counsel for parties. from what has been narrated above it is abundantly clear that the appellant neither had any motive not had any intention to kill the deceased. she only wanted to save herself from an armed intruder who had inflicted knife injuries on her. we are satisfied that the appellant acted in her right of self defence.3. in the facts and circumstances of the case we agree that the learned counsel for appellant that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted.4. in the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed. the appellant is acquitted. her bail bonds are discharged.

Judgment:
ORDER

R.M. Sahai, J.

1. The appellant was convicted under Section 304, Indian Penal Code by the trial judge and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The trial judge held that while one Phulia and her two daughters i.e. the appellant and one another were weeding their crop when deceased Ganga Ram happen to pass through the neighbouring field. According to prosecution on seeing him Nabia (appellant) abused him whereupon the deceased came protesting and grappled with the three. During the course of altercation the appellant snatched the knife from the hand of deceased and gave him a number of blows which resulted in his death. The doctor who examined the injuries of the deceased also examined the appellant and found that she had incised wound over her right forearm and two superficial cuts on her chin and Medial aspect of the middle phalanx of the middle finger. The mother had one incised wound on right hand and two contusions. Even the other sister had two superficial cuts. According to appellant the deceased after throwing the appellant down on the ground had sat on her chest and assaulted her with knife compelling the appellant to call her mother and sister who were also injured. The appellant was convicted on the testimony of eye witnesses. The High Court found that due to some exchange of hot words between the deceased and appellant there was grappling and while this was going on the appellant managed to get hold of the knife held by the deceased and in a fit of passion inflicted injuries on him which resulted in his death. The High Court also observed while considering the question of sentence that in all probability it was the deceased who himself had gone to the place of incident to invite trouble and the appellant was not armed.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for parties. From what has been narrated above it is abundantly clear that the appellant neither had any motive not had any intention to kill the deceased. She only wanted to save herself from an armed intruder who had inflicted knife injuries on her. We are satisfied that the appellant acted in her right of self defence.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case we agree that the learned Counsel for appellant that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted.

4. In the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The appellant is acquitted. Her bail bonds are discharged.