TOO MANY OF THESE . I POSTED
Deannasomerville (imported) wrote: Sun Mar 11, 2018 6:04 pm A FEW
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1660698/
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were mother and daughter. The
deceased was the brother-in-law of respondent No. 1. For
some days before the date of the Occurrence, the relations
between the two families were none too cordial. On the clay
of the occurrence there was a scuffle between the
respondents and the deceased. A little later, when the
deceased was sitting in the house of his father-in-law in
the opposite row of houses, respondent No. 1 was alleged to
have gone to the deceased with a stick to beat him. Some
neighbours intervened and tried to pacify both the parties.
When the deceased was going out, respondent No. 1 put her
leg across the legs of the deceased, as a result of which he
fell down on his back. Respondent No. 2 immediately caught
hold of both the hands of the deceased and respondent No. 1
is stated to have squeezed his testicles and pulled them.
Eventually the deceased succumbed to the injury. After the
incident respondent No. 1 lodged a complaint before the
police stating that the deceased, his wife and his
mother-in-law caught hold of her and gave her blows and
kicks with a stick as a result of Which she fell down.
Holding that the prosecution case was proved beyond
reasonable doubt, the Sessions Judge convicted respondent
No. 1 under S. 304, Part-I I.P.C. Respondent No. 2 was
convicted under s. 323 read with s. 144, I.P.C. On appeal,
the High Court, even after believing the main part of the
occurrence, acquitted respondent No. 1 of the charges
levelled against her and consequently respondent No. 2 also
on the ground that she must have done so in exercise of her
right of private defence inasmuch as she must have squeezed
the testicles of the deceased when be was showering blows
with a stick on her in order to protect herself.
Allowing the appeal of the State.
HELD : (1) The trial Court was right in believing the
evidence of the proSecution witnesses in regard to both the
incidents and the occurrence in question forming part of the
second incident. The High Court differed from the view of
the trial judge on flimsy and unsustainable grounds. [998 D-
E]
(2) There was absolutely no basis or material on the record
to enable the High Court to record an order of acquittal in
favour of the respondents by extending them a right of
private defence. Even going to the maximum extent in favour
of the respondents that respondent No. 1 got the blows with
a stick at the hands of the deceased and in the second
incident it is manifest that her action of assault on him
was a deliberate counterattack to cause him such injury
which at least was likely to cause his death. The
counterattack could in no sense be an attack in exercise of
the right of private defence. [100 F-G]
(3) Neither in her complaint before the police nor in the
statement under s.342 Cr. P.C. Was there a whisper by
respondent No. 1 of her having squeezed the testicles and
private parts of the deceased in exercise of her right of
private defence. Not only was the plea of private defence
not taken by the respondents in their statements under s.
342, Cr. P.C. but no basis for the plea was laid in the
cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or by
adducing any defence evidence. The burden of establishing
that plea was not discharged in any way by the respondents
even applying the test of preponderance of probabilities in
favour of that plea. There is absolutely no material on the
record to lead to any such conclusion. [999 G-H]
Munhi Ram and Others v. Delhi Adtministration [19681 2
S.C.R. 455, followed.
994
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/562113/
1. Upon the further evidence given by the District Medical Officer, Dr. Lancaster, who was present at the post mortem, we have no reason to doubt that the death of Kalan was due to the injuries done to his testicles, and not to disease or other cause. And the evidence, as well as the admissions of his wife, Kaliyani, the prisoner, make it clear that it was she who caused those injuries by squeezing the testicles with her hand.
The effect of that violence, according to the evidence of Dr. Lancaster, was much bruising of the glands and their reduction to a pulpy condition.
we desired the Sessions Judge to obtain the evidence of Dr. Lancaster also. It shows that there was a wound on the front part of the scrotum, probably produced by a wrench or twist. There were no marks of any teeth on the scrotum, but the wound was covered with dried blood. On opening the scrotum, the testicles, or glands proper were found to be "very much bruised and reduced to a pulpy condition." There was no apparent disease of the testicles. Their condition was due not to disease but to injury, and Dr. Lancaster considered that a prolonged severe squeeze of the testicles, even with the left hand of the accused, would have been sufficient to produce the appearances which he saw at the post mortem. He considered that the injury to the testicles was the cause of Kalan's death, and added that, even if the man had been in sound health, the injury would have caused his death. The Hospital Assistant says that the testicles were "almost absolute pulp. No solid parts remained," and was positive that shock from injury to the testicles was the sole cause of death.
she resorted to a form of attack not very uncommon among women of her class, and did so with such force and persistence that she reduced the man's testicles to pulp and killed him by the shock thus given to the nervous system.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77629047/
No.3 kicked on the testicle of the deceased. Thereafter Narasappa died and the dead body was shifted to the Government hospital, Chittapur.
tated that they have personally witnessed the incident and the assault made by petitioner/accused No.3 on the testicle of the deceased and because of that reason he expired. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
that the present petitioner Jyoti caused the injuries on the neck of the deceased by nail marks, when the deceased fell down, she kicked on the testicle of the deceased and because of that reason he expired. I have also perused the post mortem report the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body gave the opinion as to cause of death was due to vaso vagal shock as a result to trauma to right side of testis. Time since death 8 to 10 hours before to post mortem examination. The opinion of the doctor as per the post mortem report is also supporting the case of the prosecution that the present petitioner kicked the deceased on the testicle and because of that reason Narasappa expired on the spot.