DWARKA PRASAD versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

DWARKA PRASAD versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

The accused's version of the occurrence, supported by injuries on his person, unexplained delay in FIR, and infirm motive for the crime, is more probable. However, in exercising his right of private defence, the accused exceeded the permissible limit by inflicting a fatal injury with a spear. Consequently, his conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside and is substituted with conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC.

Parties
Appellant/accused: Dwarka Prasad; Respondent/state: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 February 1993
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction by the High Court
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Topics
Murder, Right of Private Defence, Appreciation of Evidence, Delay in FIR, Injuries on Accused, Section 313 Statement
Criminal Law Murder Right of Private Defence Appreciation of Evidence Delay in FIR Injuries on Accused Section 313 Statement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dwarka Prasad

Appellant/accused

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent/state

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction by the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the right of private defence was available to the accused and if it was exceeded?
  2. 2 Effect of unexplained injuries on the accused and delay in lodging FIR on the prosecution case
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution suppressed the true manner of occurrence

Ratio Decidendi

The accused's version of the occurrence, supported by injuries on his person, unexplained delay in FIR, and infirm motive for the crime, is more probable. However, in exercising his right of private defence, the accused exceeded the permissible limit by inflicting a fatal injury with a spear. Consequently, his conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside and is substituted with conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed.

Orders

  • Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside.
  • Appellant convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC.