1995 (7) TMI 439 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Incident and Charges
2. Prosecution Case
3. Defense Case
4. Trial Court Findings
5. Appellants' Contentions
6. Respondent's Contentions
7. Supreme Court Analysis
8. Right of Private Defense
9. Conviction and Acquittal

Detailed Analysis:

1. Incident and Charges:
The appellants, along with others, were charged for an incident on November 17, 1985, in village Lawa Khurd, where three persons were killed and several injured. Charges included Sections 148, 302/149 (three counts), 326/149, 325/149, 324/149, and 323/149 of the IPC, and one under Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985.

2. Prosecution Case:
Prem Raj owned 19 killas of land, which after his death, was inherited by his son and then his widow, Sm. Krishna. She sold the land to Mange Ram, who took possession. Rajinder Singh, claiming ownership, lodged a complaint against Mange Ram for trespassing. On November 17, 1985, while Sm. Krishna and her family were cultivating nearby land, the appellants arrived and started ploughing the disputed land. When Sm. Krishna and her family tried to stop them, the appellants attacked, resulting in three deaths and multiple injuries.

3. Defense Case:
The appellants claimed they were in possession of the land and were attacked by Mange Ram's party when they were cultivating it. They asserted their right of private defense, stating that the complainant party trespassed and attacked them first. Some appellants also denied their presence at the spot or claimed alibis.

4. Trial Court Findings:
The trial court found the accused in settled possession of the disputed land and concluded that the complainant party's entry was unauthorized. However, it held that the accused caused more harm than necessary, rejecting their plea of private defense. The court convicted the appellants based on the evidence, despite disbelieving the prosecution's version of the incident's genesis.

5. Appellants' Contentions:
The appellants argued that the trial court erred in convicting them based on a self-created version of the incident, disbelieved the prosecution witnesses for some accused but relied on the same evidence for others, and failed to recognize their right of private defense. They also contended that the conviction should be altered to Section 304 (Part 1) IPC.

6. Respondent's Contentions:
The respondent-state argued that the trial court's findings on possession and trespass were wrong, but other findings were supported by evidence. They contended that the principle "Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus" does not apply, and the evidence justified the convictions. They also argued that Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC did not apply due to the premeditated nature of the attack.

7. Supreme Court Analysis:
The Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court's self-created version but accepted the prosecution's version based on consistent and corroborated evidence. It noted that the complainant party's entry was to persuade the accused to withdraw, not to commit an offense or intimidate, thus not constituting "criminal trespass."

8. Right of Private Defense:
The court held that the accused had no right of private defense as the complainant party's entry did not amount to "criminal trespass." Even if it were, the right of private defense does not extend to causing death, and the attack was premeditated with an intention to cause more harm than necessary.

9. Conviction and Acquittal:
The court upheld the convictions under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, except for appellant Jai Narain, whose appeal was allowed due to the lack of evidence placing him at the scene. The other appellants were ordered to surrender to their bail bonds to serve their sentences.