Naranjan Singh Vs. Kuldip Singh and ors. - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/671633 |
| Subject | Criminal |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Decided On | Dec-09-1997 |
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 1989 |
| Judge | G.T. Nanavati and; G.B. Pattanaik, JJ. |
| Reported in | AIR1998SC1490; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)217; 1998CriLJ845; JT1997(10)SC103; (1998)9SCC11 |
| Appellant | Naranjan Singh |
| Respondent | Kuldip Singh and ors. |
| Appellant Advocate | Sudarsh Menon, Adv |
| Respondent Advocate | M.R. Sharma, Senior Adv., ; Anjana Sharma and ; Manoj Prasad |
| Prior history | From the Judgment and Order dated 18-8-1986 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. A. No. 397-DB of 1985 |
Excerpt:
.....circumstances scheme cannot be held that scheme had lapsed -.....nanavati, j.1. after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the judgment of the high court, we find that the view taken by the high court is quite reasonable and, therefore, it does not call for any interference by this court.2. the trial court believed the evidence regarding presence of accused kuldip singh and his participation in the assault on the deceased. the high court on the other hand has not believed his presence at the time of the incident. this is a finding of fact and we have now to proceed on that basis. once it is accepted that he was not present, obviously he could not have taken any part in the assault on the deceased and, therefore, the question of exceeding the right of private defence cannot arise. for this reason, the appeal is dismissed.
Judgment:Nanavati, J.
1. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the judgment of the High Court, we find that the view taken by the High Court is quite reasonable and, therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court.
2. The trial court believed the evidence regarding presence of accused Kuldip Singh and his participation in the assault on the deceased. The High Court on the other hand has not believed his presence at the time of the incident. This is a finding of fact and we have now to proceed on that basis. Once it is accepted that he was not present, obviously he could not have taken any part in the assault on the deceased and, therefore, the question of exceeding the right of private defence cannot arise. For this reason, the appeal is dismissed.