- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dnyanu Hariba Mali And Others v. State Of Maharashtra .
Factual and Procedural Background
The three appellants—Dnyanu, Tukaram and Hariba—were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sholapur. They were found guilty under Section 302/34 IPC (murder), Section 326/34 IPC (grievous hurt) and Section 323/34 IPC (simple hurt) and were sentenced to life imprisonment plus lesser concurrent sentences. The prosecution alleged that, following earlier criminal litigation between the parties, an altercation at a village shop on 3 July 1966 escalated; the appellants armed themselves with spears and fatally stabbed Dnyanuba Gadade while injuring several companions. The defence pleaded a right of private defence, asserting that a larger group of the deceased’s associates had attacked the appellants with sticks and stones.
The appellants filed an appeal under Section 410 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Bombay High Court. On 26 June 1967 the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine with a one-word order. The present judgment is the Supreme Court’s decision on the appellants’ petition for special leave challenging that summary dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Bombay High Court was justified in summarily dismissing the appellants’ statutory criminal appeal without recording reasons, despite several arguable and substantial questions of fact and law.
- Whether the record disclosed substantial issues—particularly regarding the appellants’ plea of private defence and common intention under Section 34 IPC—that required full appellate scrutiny.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The route allegedly taken by the deceased’s party through Narayan’s field was unnatural; a cart-track closer to the shop led directly to their homes, undermining the prosecution narrative.
- The Sessions Judge failed to evaluate prosecution and defence versions against the backdrop of expected natural conduct.
- The defence account—that the deceased’s party chased and assaulted Appellants 2 and 3 with sticks and stones—was more probable, and the “foot-track” theory was a prosecution invention.
- Because of prior litigation, the deceased’s party was aggressive and intended to “settle accounts”; the story that they threw stones only in self-defence was concocted.
- The extent of injuries suffered by the appellants indicated they were attacked in the manner they alleged, not as suggested by the prosecution.
- The trial court wrongly relied on what a defence witness had not told the police, thereby misusing Section 162 CrPC.
- Discrepancies between the First Information Report and the complainant’s trial testimony were not properly appreciated.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Siddanna Apparao Patil v. State of Maharashtra (1970) 1 SCC 547 | The High Court should give reasons for dismissing an appeal under Section 410 CrPC when substantial or arguable points are raised. | Relied upon to emphasise that the Bombay High Court’s one-word dismissal contravened established principles requiring reasoned orders. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had given no reasons whatsoever, making it impossible to ascertain the basis of dismissal. Reviewing the memorandum of appeal, the Court found that the appellants had raised multiple substantial points—route improbability, credibility of the prosecution version, misuse of Section 162 CrPC, discrepancies between the FIR and testimony, and most importantly the plea of private defence. Citing its earlier pronouncements (including Siddanna Apparao Patil), the Court reiterated that:
- An appellant has a statutory right to have both facts and law re-examined.
- Where arguable questions exist, the High Court is duty-bound to provide a reasoned decision rather than a summary rejection.
- The right of private defence is a significant legal issue; its availability must be assessed on the full factual matrix, and the burden lies on the accused.
Given these principles, the Court concluded that the High Court’s summary order violated the appellants’ appellate rights and the jurisprudential requirement of reasoned judgments.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; matter remitted to the Bombay High Court for fresh consideration on merits after hearing the parties.
Immediate consequence: the appellants’ criminal appeal is restored to the High Court docket, which must now conduct a full hearing and deliver a reasoned judgment. The Supreme Court did not adjudicate on the merits of guilt or the plea of private defence; no new substantive precedent was set, but the decision reinforces the duty of appellate courts to provide reasoned orders when dismissing criminal appeals.
A.N Ray, J.— This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court at Bombay dated 26th June, 1967 dismissing in limine the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sholapur dated 6th February, 1967.
2. The appellants Dnyanu, Tukaram and Hariba were convicted under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellants were also convicted under Section 326, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The appellants were also convicted under Section 323, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month only. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case in short is as follows: There were criminal prosecution between the appellants and some members of the party of Dnyanuba Gadade. Dnyanuba and prosecution witness Panda Shingade appeared in those cases as witnesses against the appellants. On 3rd July, 1966 Dnyanuba went to the shop of one Gulab Kalawat at Taluka Sangda in Sholapur District for getting some grocery on credit. The shop-keeper declined to give him grocery and a quarrel ensued between the two. The prosecution case is that the complainant Narayan Balu, Panda Shingade, Yeshwant Patil, Gana Patil and Nana Gadade happened to be there casually and on the complainant's intervention the dispute was settled. Thereafter Hariba who is an old man of 75 arrived at the shop of Gulab and without any rhyme or reason started abusing Panda Shingade. Thereupon, Panda beat appellant Hariba with a Chappal and Dnyanuba beat him with fists. Again the complainant intervened and pacified the parties whereupon appellant Hariba left the place and went towards his flour mill.
4. Shortly thereafter appellants Tukaram and Hariba came to the shop of Gulab. Tukaram was armed with an iron pipe. Apprehending that the appellants might beat Dnyanuba and Panda, the complainant went ahead and entreated the appellants not to take up the quarrel which was already settled. The appellants then went to their farm house. Dnyanuba and his companions continued to sit at the shop of Gulab for more than an hour. Then the party of Dnyanuba thought it would not be safe to allow Dnyanuba to go alone, they all started going towards the house by foot track which passed through the land of one Narayan Mali. The appellants who were in their farm-house saw the party going along the foot track and they left the farm-house and went towards the approaching party. Appellant 1 carried two spears in his hand, one of which he handed over to Appellant 2 on the way. Then the appellants and the party of the deceased came across each other on the foot track in Narayan's fields. Then Dnyanuba requested the appellants not to beat them since the quarrel was settled. Disregarding this request at the instigation of Appellant 3, Appellant 2 stabbed Dnyanuba with a spear on his chest. Dnyanuba then collapsed. Thereupon Yashwant Patil fell on his person to save him and Appellant 1 stabbed Yeshwant Patil on his back. The complainant tried to snatch the spear from the hands of appellant No. 1. Injury was caused to the index-finger of the complainant's right hand. At the same time appellant No. 2 hit Nana Gadade wilh the handle of the spear. Then five members of the party of the deceased began to pelt stones at the appellants. The appellants sustained injuries.
5. The appellants denied the charge and pleaded a right of self defence. This defence was that the party of the deceased Dnyanuba which consisted of about 15 to 20 persons were the aggressors and were beating the Appellants 2 and 3 with sticks and stones. Appellant 1 and his wife were coming to the place of incident. When they approached, the opposite party pelted stones at them and both of them sustained injuries. In the melee Appellant 1 took out a knife and in self defence started using it against the aggressors as a result of which some members from the opposite party might have received injuries.
6. It will appear from the judgment of the Session Court that two of the main points which fell for determination were; first whether the accused in general, and Accused 2 in particular, caused the injuries to Dnyanuba Gadade and three others in self defence, and, secondly, whether the accused in furtherance of common intention murdered Dnyanuba Gadade.
7. In the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellants before the High Court at Bombay, the principal questions raised by the appellants were these. First, that the trial Judge failed to appreciate that considering the situation of the shop of Gulab Kalawat from where the deceased and his companions proceeded to go to their houses towards the north they could not possibly have thought of going through Narayan's field when very close to Gulab's shop was a cart-track which look them straight to their houses. Secondly, that the trial Judge should have proceeded to consider and appreciate the respective versions of the prosecution and the defence as against the background of this position and the expected natural course of conduct on the part of the other party in proceeding towards their house by the shorter and the more convenient way of cart-track. Thirdly, that the defence version that the party of the deceased actually chased Appellants 2 and 3 through the field of Narayan and assaulted them with sticks and stones in the field appears to be more natural and more probable and therefore more acceptable and that the alleged foot track appears to have been invented by the prosecution to explain their meeting the appellants in the field of Narayan. Fourthly, that the deceased and his party were in an aggressive mood and that in view of the previous litigation they wanted to settle accounts with the appellants and with that view they chased Appellants 2 and 3 and overtook them in the field of Narayan and assaulted them with sticks and stones and that the prosecution story put forward that stones were hurled at the appellants in self defence by the party of the deceased was invented in self defence by the prosecution. Fifthly, that if the only object of the opposite party was to scare away the appellants and prevent them from making a further assault as soon as the opposite party started pelting stones at, on the appellant them would have run away and would not have sustained so many injuries as a result of stone throwing by the other party and that therefore in all probability the appellants sustained their injuries under the circumstances and in the manner alleged by them and not as alleged by the prosecution. Sixthly, that the trial Judge committed a serious error in referring to what the defence witness did not state before the police thereby allowing the statement of a defence witness under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code to be used at the trial. Finally; the conflict between the complainant's first information report and his evidence at the trial was not appreciated.
8. Some of the important points raised by the appellants have been referred to above only to illustrate the arguable and substantial points raised by the appellants both as to fact and law.
9. The High Court dismissed the appeal with a one word order of dismissal. It is, therefore, not possible to know the reasons which persuaded the High Court to do so. This Court has, from time to time, stated that in dealing with appeals under Section 410 of the criminal Procedure Code from sentences of Court of Sessions the High Court should give reasons for rejection of an appeal and if arguable and substantial points are raised, the High Court should not summarily reject the appeal. In Siddanna Apparao Patil v. State of Maharashtra (1970) 1 SCC 547 reference has been made to a few decisions of this Court which illustrate as to what substantial and arguable points of law are. The right of self defence is an important one. The onus is on the accused. This right can be availed of by the accused only when circumstances fully justify the exercise of such a right. There is a right of appeal on fact as well as on law. It is desirable that if the appellants raise arguable and substantial points, the High Court should deal with it in the light of principles laid down by this Court.
10. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on hearing the parties.
Alert