ikbal Vs. the State of Rajasthan

ikbal vs The State of Rajasthan

Disposition Petition allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 28, 1997

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/763109

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/763109
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: B.J. Shethna, J.
Decided On: Jul 28, 1997
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 318 of 1997
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 100--Right of self defence--Scope--The two courts below have ignored the fact that the accused did what was necessary to save his sister from molestation--He cannot be alleged to have exceeded in his right of private defence--The two impugned orders of conviction are set aside--Accused acq...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

ikbal

Respondent

The State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1997(3)WLC369; 1997(2)WLN164

Excerpt

penal code, 1860 - section 100--right of self defence--scope--the two courts below have ignored the fact that the accused did what was necessary to save his sister from molestation--he cannot be alleged to have exceeded in his right of private defence--the two impugned orders of conviction are set aside--accused acquitted.;revision allowed - - sessions judge while dismissing the appeal has clearly stated in para no......exercised his right of self defence for saving his sister from molestation by the hands of the complainant side, against whom the cross case was filed for the offences punishable under sections 323, 341, 354 read with 34 ipc. having held that the learned a.d.j. found that the accused had exceeded in his light of self defence. the manner in which the incident took place and looking to the injuries caused by petitioner ikbal, it cannot be said that the petitioner has exceeded his right of self defence. anyone in place of the accused, would have done the same thing which the present accused had done. it is the duty of the brother to save his sister from molestation. the accused has done nothing more than that. unfortunately, it appeals that the courts below have completely lost sight of this fact and found the accused guilty for offence punishable under section 326 ipc.3. in my opinion, the accused had right of self defence and he has rightly exercised the same in the facts and circumstances of this case,4. in view of the above discussion, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under section 326 ipc and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rs. 500/- are hereby set aside. the accused be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.5. revision is allowed.

Full Judgment

B.J. Shethna, J.

1. Admit Issue notice. Learned PP Shri B.S. Bhati accepts notice for the respondent. At the request and by the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this matter is heard finally today.

2. It is a very strange case of conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below. Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below in its revisional jurisdiction. But this is an extra ordinary case wherein this Court has to exercise its revision jurisdiction. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal has clearly stated in para No. 15 of his judgment that the accused exercised his right of self defence for saving his sister from molestation by the hands of the complainant side, against whom the cross case was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 354 read with 34 IPC. Having held that the learned A.D.J. found that the accused had exceeded in his light of self defence. The manner in which the incident took place and looking to the injuries caused by petitioner Ikbal, it cannot be said that the petitioner has exceeded his right of self defence. Anyone in place of the accused, would have done the same thing which the present accused had done. It is the duty of the brother to save his sister from molestation. The accused has done nothing more than that. Unfortunately, it appeals that the courts below have completely lost sight of this fact and found the accused guilty for offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.

3. In my opinion, the accused had right of self defence and he has rightly exercised the same in the facts and circumstances of this case,

4. In view of the above discussion, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- are hereby set aside. The accused be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

5. Revision is allowed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1997 Same Parties ikbal vs The State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge B.J. Shethna, J.

Criminal