Name of the Judgement
Ahmed Shah v State of Rajasthan (2015) 3 SCC 93.
Brief Background of the Judgement
The present case revolves around a violent incident arising from a land dispute. The prosecution case was that on 29.4.1996 the complainant, Rakhu Shah, accompanied by his sister, Rakhia (PW-8), nephew Hasan Ali, and Sabbir Shah, was present on the land owned by Abdul Shah when the appellants entered the field with spears and lathis. During the confrontation, the accused inflicted injuries on the claimant, Rakhu Shah and Sabbir Shah. Accused, Ahmed Shah further injured Sabbir Shah with a spear, leading to his death on the spot due to profuse bleeding. Additionally, the accused also assaulted Rakhia, resulting in injuries to her as well. Thereafter, when the complaints taken to hospital police lodged the FIR based on the statement of the accused.
The Appellant- Ahmed Shah has his case that the land in dispute was purchased by the Appellant from the complainant- Abdul Shah, in 1987 and the possession of the land is with him and not the claimant. He claims that the claimants are the ones who came to his land to forcibly occupy it and Sabbir shah was the one who fired the gun. Thus, he claimed that the claimant are the aggressor and not the appellant.
The trial court convicted all the accused under Sections 148, 307/149, and 302/149 of IPC. The accused then appealed to the High Court, which found Gurmukh Singh and Ahmed Shah guilty of causing the death of Sabbir Shah, convicting them under Section 302/34 of the IPC. Two other accused were convicted under Section 307/149 of the IPC, but their sentences were reduced to the period already served. The High Court acquitted the remaining accused. As a result, the case was brought before the Supreme Court for final resolution.
Size of the Bench
Full Bench consisting of 3 Judges.
Name of the Judges
Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Banumathi.
Opinion Delivered by
Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Banumathi.
Advocates for the Parties
Doongar Singh, V.J Francis, Harikumar V., Jenis V. Francis, Ram Naresh Yadav and Milind Kumar, Advocates, for the appearing parties.
Interveners
There were no interveners in the present case.
Material Facts of the Case
1. In 1987, Abdul Shah sold a piece of land to Appellant- Ahmed Shah, who had been in possession of it since then. Roopa Ram Bajigar had been cultivating the land on behalf of Ahmed Shah.
2. On the day of the incident, seven individuals from the complainant's side—Rakhia, Rakhu Shah, Hasan Shah, Sabbir Shah, Darey Shah, Moti Shah, and Rauram—came to the property with the intent to forcibly seize possession of the land. Testimony from PW-8, along with Exhibit P.65, revealed that seven individuals from the accused side—Rasool Shah, Ahmed Shah, Amar Shah, Zakir, Subhan, Sheru, and Gurmukh Singh—were also present at the scene.
3. When the complainant's party attempted to take possession of the land, a sudden scuffle ensued. The incident appeared to be spontaneous, with no prior planning or deliberation from either side. The complainant's group initiated the confrontation, with Sabbir Shah armed with a gun.
4. During the fight, the appellants attempted to seize the gun from Sabbir Shah. In the ensuing struggle, the appellants inflicted injuries on Sabbir Shah, which resulted in his death.
Issues raised before the Court
1. Whether the accused were the owner of the property and in possession of it?
2. Whether the present case comes under exception 4 to section 300 of IPC?
3. Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the other accused?
There were Mixed Questions of Law and Facts.
Arguments for Appellants
1. It was argued that the FIR lodges contain names of only seven accused and that more names were added later on and there was over-implication of the accused.
2. It was contended that the statement of the investigating officer, Mangu Lal, and other witness clearly shows that the possession of the disputed land was with the accused which completely alters the prosecution case.
3. The present case is one of free fight and individual liability of the accused could not be established and therefore appellant are not liable under section Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 307/34 IPC.
Argument for Respondent
1. It was contended that appellant and the other accused formed unlawful assembly and with the common object and murdered Rakhu Shah and Sabbir Shah and caused fatal injury to Rakhia. The evidence of eye established the overt act of accused person.
2. The land in dispute was owned and possessed by Abdul Shah and the accused person were the aggressor and has no right of defence in protection of their property.
3. It was argued that prosecution has proved the overt act of the accused person, and the High Court was wrong in acquitting the other accused person.
Provisions of the Statute involved
1. Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC
2. Sections 307, 323, 147, 148 and 149 IPC.
3. Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 307/34 IPC.9.
4. Sections 148, 307/149 and 302/149 IPC
The precedent relied on by the Court
Sridhar Bhuyan v State of Orissa, (2004) 11 SCC 395
In this case, the court clarifies that for Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC to apply, it must be shown that the act was done without prior planning, during a sudden fight, and in the heat of the moment following an unexpected quarrel. The offender must also not have taken unfair advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual way.
Satish Narayan Sawant v State of Goa, (2009) 17 SCC 724
This case was referred to highlight that it must be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner.
Concrete Judgement
The court dismissed the state's appeal and altered the conviction of the appellants, Ahmed Shah and Gurmukh Singh, from Section 302/34 of the IPC to a conviction under Section 304 Part I and life imprisonment is reduced to the sentence already undergone by them.
Ratio Decidendi
Exception 4 deals with cases in which death has been caused in a sudden fight in heat of the passion and without any premeditation or deliberation. The sudden fight implies mutual provocation on both sides. There is not only one party to blame but both and both are on equal footing. Therefore, in case where the other person has contributed equally and there is provocation then the accused are not liable for murder and will fall under the said exception.
Conclusion
Therefore, in the present case, the prosecution has tried to make the wrong story which they fail to substantiate with proper evidence. The land was owned by the appellant and the claimant and others arrived at the property with the gun with the intention to take possession and then the incident took place. In the heat of the moment, the scuffle took place between the appellants and the claimant and there was no premeditation, and deliberation therefore fell under the exception to section 300 IPC.