The mere fact that the natural consequence of an entry is known to be annoyance to the person in possession is not sufficient to prove that the entry was with the intent to annoy.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL TRESPASS - INTENT TO ANNOY - UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY - PARTICIPATION - SENTENCE - MODIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:

A tragic incident occurred at Mohangarh village during the execution of decrees for ejectment obtained by landlords. Twelve persons lost their lives, and several others were injured, including police officers assisting in the execution. Thirty-nine individuals were sent to trial for offenses under Sections 148, 302/149, and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the assembly of villagers was an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Rattan Singh and others who wanted to dispossess them. The court also found that the individual accused participated in the unlawful assembly and that offenses under Sections 304 Part II, 326, 324, and 323 I.P.C. were committed by some members of the assembly in pursuance of the common object.
Issues: 1. Whether the entry of Rattan Singh and others onto the property constituted criminal trespass with the intent to annoy. 2. Whether the assembly of villagers was an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Rattan Singh and others. 3. Whether the individual accused participated in the unlawful assembly. 4. Whether offenses under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code were committed by causing the death of Rattan Singh and Dharam Singh. 5. Whether the sentences passed on the appellants were too severe.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the entry of Rattan Singh and others onto the property did not constitute criminal trespass with the intent to annoy. The court reasoned that the natural consequence of the entry was known to be annoyance to the person in possession, but this alone was not sufficient to prove that the entry was with the intent to annoy. The court considered all the relevant circumstances, including the presence of knowledge that its natural consequences would be annoyance, intimidation, or insult, and the probability of something else than the causing of such intimidation, insult, or annoyance being the dominant intention which prompted the entry. 2. The court held that the assembly of villagers was an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Rattan Singh and others. The court reasoned that the evidence showed that the villagers had gathered with the common object of preventing Rattan Singh and others from executing the warrants of possession and that they had used violence to achieve this object. 3. The court held that the individual accused participated in the unlawful assembly. The court reasoned that the evidence showed that the accused were present at the place of occurrence when the mob dispersed, that they were found lying injured near the dead and injured members of the mob, and that some of them were tenants judgment-debtors or close relations of the tenants judgment-debtors. 4. The court held that offenses under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code were not committed by causing the death of Rattan Singh and Dharam Singh. The court reasoned that the evidence did not show that any of the accused had caused the deaths of Rattan Singh and Dharam Singh. 5. The court held that the sentences passed on the appellants were too severe for the women appellants and two of the male appellants considering their age and the circumstances of the case. The court reduced their sentences to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal of the accused persons except as regards the modification in sentences of eight of them. The court also dismissed the appeal preferred by the State of Punjab.

Judgment

DAS GUPTA, J. : On June 7, 1960 a tragic occurrence took place at a village called Mohangarh over the delivery of possession of certain lands in execution of decrees for ejectment obtained by landlords. Twelve persons lost their lives and several others received serious injuries. Among the injured were some members of the police force who had gone there to assist in the delivery of possession. Thirtynine persons were sent up to the Sessions Court for trial for offences under S. 148, S. 302/149 and S. 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case was that thought the warrants for delivery of possession in execution of several decrees in favour of the several decree-holders had been issued as early as April 5, 1960 repeated attempts by Revenue Officers to execute the decrees were unsuccessful. It was when further attempt was being made on June 7, 1960 to execute those warrants that the villages including the tenants who were to be dispossessed of their lands, and their friends and sympathisers attacked the decree-holders men and the police party who had accompanied them to the field. It is said that on behalf of the decree-holders. Rattan Singh and his four companions Dharam Singh, Abbey Ram Bharat Singh and Nihal Singh entered with field of Prabhu, one of the judgment-debtors with two ploughs yoked to two teams of bullocks. Hardly had they gone a short distance into the field when a mob, about 200 strong, consisting of men and women armed with lathis, jailis and gandasas came up shouting "Kill Rattan Singh and do not allow possession to be taken". The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sangrur, who was with the party then announced over a loud speaker that the declared the mob an unlawful assembly and called upon it to disperse. A large number out of the mob however managed to reach Rattan Singh and his party and thought Nihal Singh was able to get away the other four were attacked by several persons in the mob. On the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the police made a lath charge on the mob but the mob counter-attacked. In the course of the attack the Assistant Sub-Inspector Gurdial Singh received an injury and some of rioters tried to carry him away. In an attempt to save the situation Sub-Inspector Sitaram fired two shots from his revolver. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate then ordered the police to fire. A party of four fired two volleys. It was when after this 14 policemen fired the volleys that the mob ran away, leaving ten of their members dead and some injured on their field. Rattan Singh and his three companions also lay injured on the field.

3. Rattan Singh and Dharam Singh died of their injuries. Some of the policemen also received injuries. All the ten appellants are said to have been found lying injured in the field. They are a large number of other persons were arrested and ultimately, as already stated thirtynine persons were sent up to the Sessions Court for trial.

4. All the accused pleaded not guilty. Apart from the defence of several of them that they were not at the place of occurrence at all and had received their injuries elsewhere, it was common case of all the accused that there was no unlawful assembly at all. It was pleaded that the tenants in possession came to the field to defend their property against criminal trespass and the object of those who assembled was nothing more than to defend their property against such trespass. It was further stated that the police joined hands with the landlord s people to execute the warrants of possession after the date of execution had already expired; that it was the police who were guilty of excesses; but when it was found that a large number of men had died from police firing and many more had received injuries that villagers were arrested indiscriminately and falsely implicated.

5. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution case substantially proved and rejected the plea of the accused of the right of privat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1963 Supreme(SC) 292

The mere fact that the natural consequence of an entry is known to be annoyance to the person in possession is not sufficient to prove that the entry was with the intent to annoy.

Cases Referred (4)