TRILOKI NATH AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

TRILOKI NATH AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

The right of private defence could not be claimed by the accused, as they were the aggressors and the occurrence took place away from their property after removing the wood. The assembly of accused had the common object to cause grievous hurt, not to kill. Jitendra alone, with Triloki Nath's specific exhortation, developed a common intention to kill Nanhe, warranting their conviction under Section 302/34 IPC. Other accused were convicted under Section 326/149 IPC for causing grievous hurt in prosecution of their common object.

Parties
Appellant: Triloki Nath; Appellant: Krishna Chandra Singh; Appellant: Shashi Kant; Appellant: Sahdev; Appellant: Kunwar Prahlad Singh; Appellant: Jitendra @ Mister; Appellant: Gopal; Respondent: State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed subject to alteration of conviction and sentence
Legal Topics
Right of Private Defence, Unlawful Assembly, Common Object, Constructive Liability, Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus
Criminal Law Right of Private Defence Unlawful Assembly Common Object Constructive Liability Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Triloki Nath

Appellant

Krishna Chandra Singh

Appellant

Shashi Kant

Appellant

Sahdev

Appellant

Kunwar Prahlad Singh

Appellant

Jitendra @ Mister

Appellant

Gopal

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused were entitled to the right of private defence resulting in the death of the deceased
  2. 2 Whether Section 149 IPC (unlawful assembly with common object) was attracted
  3. 3 Extent to which injuries on the accused must be explained by prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

The right of private defence could not be claimed by the accused, as they were the aggressors and the occurrence took place away from their property after removing the wood. The assembly of accused had the common object to cause grievous hurt, not to kill. Jitendra alone, with Triloki Nath's specific exhortation, developed a common intention to kill Nanhe, warranting their conviction under Section 302/34 IPC. Other accused were convicted under Section 326/149 IPC for causing grievous hurt in prosecution of their common object.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed subject to alteration of conviction and sentence

Orders

  • Conviction of Jitendra and Triloki Nath under Section 302/34 IPC maintained.
  • Conviction of remaining appellants altered to Section 326/149 IPC with 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000 each (with 3 months' simple imprisonment in default).