STATE OF BIHAR versus MATHU PANDEY & ORS.

STATE OF BIHAR versus MATHU PANDEY & ORS.

Since the respondents' common object was to prevent the theft of fruits in exercise of their right of private defence of property, and not to kill the deceased, s. 302 read with s. 149 or s. 34 IPC is not attracted. Only those who exceeded the right of private defence may be individually responsible.

Parties
Appellant: State of Bihar; Respondent: Mathu Pandey; Respondent: D. Gobardhun
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 April 1969
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Acquittal by High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Acquittal confirmed.
Legal Topics
Indian Penal Code Section 302, Indian Penal Code Section 149, Right of Private Defence, Unlawful Assembly
Criminal Law Indian Penal Code Section 302 Indian Penal Code Section 149 Right of Private Defence Unlawful Assembly

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Bihar

Appellant

Mathu Pandey

Respondent

D. Gobardhun

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Acquittal by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents, accused of murder under s. 302 read with s. 149 IPC, were entitled to the right of private defence under s. 103 IPC and whether their acts were in prosecution of a common unlawful object.

Ratio Decidendi

Since the respondents' common object was to prevent the theft of fruits in exercise of their right of private defence of property, and not to kill the deceased, s. 302 read with s. 149 or s. 34 IPC is not attracted. Only those who exceeded the right of private defence may be individually responsible.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Acquittal confirmed.

Orders

  • Respondents cannot be convicted under s. 302 read with s. 149 or s. 302 read with s. 34 IPC.