State of U.P vs Ram Swarup Anr. on 2nd May, 1974

Spread the love

Post Views: 36

CITATION	1974 AIR 1570, 1570, 1570,1975 SCR (1) 409
DATE AND YEAR	2^ND 1974
COURT NAME	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PLAINTIFF	STATE OF U.P
DEFENDANT	RAM SWARUP & ANR
BENCH	Y.V CHANDRACHUD, M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG, V.R KRISHNAIYER

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India’s 1974 decision in the case of State of U.P. vs. Ram Swarup & others plays a crucial role in understanding the complexities surrounding the right to private defense as well as the state’s right to appeal. The case revolved around the conflict between Ganga Ram and Sahib Dutta Mal, also known as Munimji, at the Sabzi-mandi in Badhaun, Uttar Pradesh, on 7^th June 1970, which resulted in the death of Munimji. Ganga Ram and his son Ram Swarup, the main accused, faced conviction from the Supreme Court, which led to multiple appeals that ultimately resulted in an extensive ruling by the Supreme Court.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1) Ganga Ram and Sahib Dutta, also known as Munimji, were competitors in business. Early in the morning, around 7 a.m., Ganga Ram approached Sahib to purchase a basket of melons, but Sahib refused to sell it, leading to a heated argument between them before Ganga Ram stormed off from the market.

2) Later, Ganga Ram returned to the market accompanied by his son Ram Swarup and two other sons. Ganga Ram was armed with a knife, Ram Swarup held a gun, and the other two sons carried sticks. They confronted Sahib aggressively, who attempted to back away.

3) At close range, Ram Swarup shot and killed Sahib. The presiding session court judge found Ram Swarup guilty under section 302 of the IPC and imposed a death sentence on him, while Ganga Ram was convicted under section 302 of the IPC in conjunction with section 34 of the IPC and received a life sentence. The other two sons were cleared of all accusations.

4) An appeal was filed in the High Court, which resulted in the acquittal of both Ganga Ram and Ram Swarup while affirming the acquittal of the other two sons. The High Court concluded, without any supporting evidence, that Ganga Ram habitually carried a gun to his vegetable farm.

5) The High Court’s determination that the respondents visited the market merely for a casual purchase and that they possessed a gun out of habit served as the foundation for its acceptance of the self-defense claim presented by the respondents. According to the High Court, what began as a routine trip to the market escalated into an unforeseen dispute between the deceased and Ganga Ram.

6) The altercation led to a physical struggle, which prompted the deceased’s assistants to strike Ganga Ram with sticks, ultimately inciting Ram Swarup to use the gun in defense of his father. The state subsequently sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1) Is the acquittal of Ram Swarup and Ganga Ram by the Honorable High Court legally justified?

2) Does the accused possess the right to self-defense under the given circumstances?

JUDGMENT

1) The High Court had cleared Ganga Ram and Ram Swarup of charges based on the respondents’ arguments. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court thoroughly examined the respondents’ points and provided a response. In addressing concerns about the credibility of the witnesses, the Supreme Court stated:

“While caution serves as a reliable and essential element in judicial considerations, it does not warrant a preconceived belief that the case is inherently suspicious.”

2) The Supreme Court further responded to the argument regarding the absence of verbal exchanges by stating:

“The High Court concluded without evidence that Ganga Ram brought a gun to his vegetable farm, and the entirety of the aforementioned conclusion seems to rest on the slender foundation that Sona Ram acknowledged Ganga Ram’s ownership of a village farm located two miles from Badaun. We find it difficult to concur with the High Court’s reasoning concerning the motives of Ganga Ram and Ram Swarup for visiting the market and how they came to have a gun with them. It is evident that after feeling insulted by the melon incident, they went to the market to seek vengeance.”

3) The Supreme Court also addressed the concern regarding a single bullet in the gun, stating:

“Ganga Ram and Ram Swarup were incensed by the presumption of superiority from a trade adversary and returned to the market in a turbulent state. They likely had no time to consider whether the double-barrel gun contained one bullet or two, just as an attacker about to stab wouldn’t worry about carrying an extra knife. In situations where emotions are uncontrollably high, assailants abandon caution and are often blinded by their passions, indifferent to the repercussions of their actions. The High Court dismissed the importance of the pellet marks on the door frame, believing that the gunfire that struck the chaukhat did not hit the victim. However, this contradicts its own assertion that the respondents had loaded only one cartridge in the gun—a premise it used to conclude that the respondents did not approach the market with malicious intent. From a ballistic standpoint, there is no justification to assume that the shot that fatally injured the victim was not the same one that impacted the door frame.”

4) The Supreme Court discussed the right of private defense, its relevance in this case, and its limitations. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of Ganga Ram while convicting Ram Swarup, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

5) In addition to its decision concerning the case, the Court also stated:

“The standing of state governments to file appeals in this court regarding judgments or orders made in criminal cases has been acknowledged over time for valid reasons, namely, all crimes present issues of law and order, and some create concerns regarding public disorder. State governments are tasked with the implementation and enforcement of laws aimed at crime prevention and punishment. As such, they have a significant interest in criminal cases. The argument that the state government lacks the standing to lodge the appeal must be dismissed.”

REASONING—

The Honorable Judge Y.V. Chandrachud presided over this case and expressed his views as follows:

The right to defend oneself is meant for protection, not retribution. It is applicable in the presence of an immediate threat to individuals acting in good faith and cannot be invoked by someone who orchestrates a scenario to use this right as an excuse for aggressive behavior. If someone approaches another with the intent to harm, the person being threatened has the right to defend themselves; however, there is no justification for killing that individual merely to prevent them from exercising their right to self-defense. The Indian Penal Code, in establishing the right to private defense, has not created a system that allows for provoking an attack as a pretext for committing homicide. Anticipating a confrontation does not justify the killing of Munimji, but it remains pertinent to the sentencing; consequently, we will convert the death penalty handed down to Ram Swarup by the Session Court to a life sentence.

CONCLUSION-

The case presents a traditional issue regarding the right to private defense as outlined in sections 99 and 100 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court has provided in-depth explanations regarding what constitutes the right to private defense in its rulings. This right serves as a general exception to the crimes defined in the Indian Penal Code, but it does have certain limitations. There is a boundary beyond which this right can be exercised. In this instance, the Supreme Court acted as a ‘court of last resort.’ After three separate rulings from three different courts, the highest authority ensured that justice was served. The Supreme Court clearly articulated that this right is highly significant. It serves a societal function and should not be interpreted in a limited manner. It is essential for recognizing situations where the right can be utilized as an effective means of defense against wrongdoers. This case is significant and serves as a legal precedent.

REFERENCES

Written by Amisha Rathod, a student at Ajeenkya DY Patil University, Pune

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.