Putur Besara Vs. State of Bihar

hon'ble judges: g.t. nanavati and s.p. kurdukar, jj. - indian penal code, 1890 section 96: [dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] right of private defence availability held, it is a question of fact to be determined on facts and circumstances of each case. no test in abstract for determining such a question can be laid down.section 96: plea as to private defence held, burden of proof is on the accused. burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities is favour of that plea. section 96: right of private defence - accused taking plea of private defence held, held, he need not required to call evidence. he can establish his plea by reference to circumstances transpiring from prosecution evidence itself. section 96 : right of private defence -injuries on body of accused person held, presumption cannot necessarily be raised that accused person had caused injuries to deceased in exercise of right of private defence. sections 96, 98 &99 :right of private defence - right extending to voluntary causing of death held, accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to him. sections 102 &105: private defence held, the right commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to body arises and lasts so long as reasonable apprehension of danger to body continues. sections 300, 96 & 99: murder - appellants allegedly assaulted deceased by means of crow bar and stick - large number of eye witnesses also had suffered injuries - witnesses version is clear, cogent and credible - no reason to discard their version non-explanation of the injuries on accused held, mere non explanation of injuries may not affect the prosecution case. theory of self defence advanced by appellant no. 1 contending that deceased had come to his hotel armed with deadly weapons but he managed to snatch weapons and in self defence gave wide hit to deceased is.....ordernanavati, j.1. this appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the patna high court in criminal appeal no. 201 of 1992.2. having gone through the evidence of p.w. 2 and other witnesses and also the judgment of the high court, we do not find any infirmity either in the evidence of p.w. 2- arti devi or in appreciation of her evidence by the courts below.3. this appeal is, therefore, dismissed.