1964 (9) TMI 85 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the illegal seizure of cattle under Section 10 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871 amounts to the offence of theft or robbery.
2. Whether the complainant party had the right to use force to rescue the cattle.
3. Whether the appellants had the right of private defence in causing injuries and death.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Illegal Seizure of Cattle and Offence of Theft or Robbery:
The primary issue was whether the illegal seizure of cattle under Section 10 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, constitutes theft or robbery. The court determined that the seizure of cattle by the appellants, even if illegal, did not amount to theft. The court noted that for an act to be considered theft under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, it must involve moving movable property out of someone's possession without consent and with dishonest intention. The court found that the appellants seized the cattle under the mistaken belief that they were damaging crops and intended to take them to the pound, as directed by the Act. The court emphasized that the Act provides comprehensive remedies for illegal seizure through Chapter V, which deals with complaints, compensation, and penalties, but does not criminalize the act of illegal seizure itself. Therefore, the appellants' actions did not constitute theft or robbery.

2. Right to Use Force to Rescue Cattle:
The court examined whether the complainant party had the right to use force to rescue the cattle. The High Court had held that the prosecution party had the right of private defence of property and could use force to recover their cattle, subject to the limitation that excessive force should not be used. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that since the seizure was not theft, the complainant party had no right to use force to rescue the cattle. The court emphasized that the remedy for illegal seizure is provided under Section 20 of the Act, which allows the aggrieved party to make a complaint to the Magistrate and seek compensation.

3. Right of Private Defence in Causing Injuries and Death:
The court also addressed whether the appellants had the right of private defence in causing injuries and the death of a member of the complainant party. The court accepted the findings of the High Court that the plot was in the possession of Shamnarain Singh and that the seizure was illegal. However, it concluded that the appellants had a reasonable apprehension of suffering grievous hurt or death at the hands of the complainant party, who were armed and determined to rescue the cattle. The court found that the complainant party's aggressive actions justified the appellants' use of force in self-defence. Consequently, the court held that the appellants committed no offence in causing injuries and death.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions of the appellants under Sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as other offences. The court ordered the release of the appellants from custody, concluding that their actions did not amount to theft or robbery, and they were justified in exercising their right of private defence.