The right of private defence of property extends to the voluntary causing of death only if the offence, the committing of which or the attempting to commit which occasions the exercise of the right, falls in one of the categories enumerated in S. 103 of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Right of private defence of property - Scope and extent - When available - Ingredients of robbery - Whether satisfied - Right of private defence of property extending to the causing of death - When available - Ingredients of S. 103 of the Indian Penal Code - Whether satisfied - Right of private defence of person or property - When available - Ingredients of S. 300, Exception 2 of the Indian Penal Code - Whether satisfied.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted of murder under S. 302, read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for killing three persons who were cutting crops on a plot of land that the appellants claimed to be in their possession. The appellants claimed that they had the right of private defence of property to cause the death of the deceased, as they were attempting to commit robbery.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the appellants had no right of private defence of property extending to the causing of death, as the deceased were not attempting to commit robbery. The High Court also held that the appellants had not exceeded the right of private defence of person or property, as they had shot the deceased from a close range without warning and without any intention of doing more harm than was necessary.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants had the right of private defence of property to cause the death of the deceased? 2. Whether the appellants had exceeded the right of private defence of person or property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right of private defence of property extends to the voluntary causing of death only if the offence, the committing of which or the attempting to commit which occasions the exercise of the right, falls in one of the categories enumerated in S. 103 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The ingredients of robbery are theft, the use of force or fear of instant death or of instant harm, and the intention to cause wrongful loss or gain. 3. In the present case, the deceased were not attempting to commit robbery, as they were not using force or fear of instant death or of instant harm, and they did not have the intention to cause wrongful loss or gain. 4. The appellants had not exceeded the right of private defence of person or property, as they had shot the deceased from a close range without warning and without any intention of doing more harm than was necessary.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. : This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad setting aside the acquittal made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kumaun, Nainital, and convicting the appellants under S. 302, read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life.

2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated. Gurucharan Lal one of the deceased had title to and was in physical possession of plot No. 57 in the village of Azadnagar. On April 10, 1960, Gurucharan Lal, accompanied by Bhagwan Swarup, Amrit Lal, Nand Singh and Mohan Prakash, left his house in Rudrapur for Azadnagar to harvest the crop standing on the said plot. Bhagwan Das also had a plot in the same village in his name and he also started to go there to harvest his crop. As they anticipated some trouble from the accused persons, appellants herein, enroute to Azadnagar they went to police station Kiccha, which was on their way, and lodged two reports therein, Exs. Ka-1 and Ka-2. It was alleged therein that there was an apprehension of breach of peace from the side of the accused. The head-constable of the said police station, in consultation with the Sub-Inspector, sent two constables, Khem Singh (P. W. 2) and Chandra Singh (P. W.8) to go along with them to the said village. Gurucharan Lal and his companions were joined on their way by Gaindal Mal, Gurucharan Lal s father, and one Kalyan, a labourer. The party reached the village at about 8 a. m. and started cutting the crop standing on plot No. 57. Half an hour thereafter, Baldeo Raj and Madan Lal, accused, reached there and told the said two constables that they were wanted by the Station Officer at the police station. At first they refused to go, but later Chandra Singh (P. W. 8), one of the two constables, accompanied by the said two accused proceeded to the police station. After going a short distance, the said two accused asked Chandra Singh to go to the police station by himself as they were returning to their houses. About half an hour later, Madan Lal (Appellant No. 4), Baldeo Raj, Gurdatta Mal (Appellant No. 1), Harbans Lal (Appellant No. 2), Pyare Lal (Appellant No. 3) and Gopal Das came to the said field. Of these persons, Gurdatta Mal, Pyare Lal and Madan Lal were armed with guns; Harbans Lal was armed with a spear; Baldeo Raj and Gopal Das were armed with lathis. When they approached the field, constable Khem Singh asked them to stop and not to proceed further. But they entered the field and fired their guns killing Gainda Mal, his son Gurucharan Lal and one Nanda Singh, a photographer brought by the complainant s party to take photographs of the accused in case they attacked them. Bhagwan Swarup was assaulted by those who had lathis and was injured. Bhagwan Das and the retraining persons then ran, away from the field raising alarm.

3. The appellants and two others, Baldeo Raj and Gopal Das, were put up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kumaun, for committing offences under Ss. 302/149, 323/149, 147 and 140 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants 1, 3 dud 4 were further charged for an offence under S. 19 (f) of the Arms Act.

4. It would be convenient at this stage to notice the defence version which is as follows; Plot No. 57 was in the cultivatory possession of the appellants and crops standing thereon were raised by them. On April 10, 1960, at about 8.30 a.m. they cause to know that Gurucharan Lal had gone to the said plot with 25 persons to cut the crop. In order to stop them from wrongfully cutting their crop, the appellants went to the plot armed with guns, spears and lathis, because they had come to know that the party of Gurucharan Lal comprised 25 persons armed with deadly weapons. Having come to the plot, they asked Gurucharan Lal and his men not to cut the crop. But Bhagwan Das and his party advanced to assault them. Bhagwan Das actually fired a shot towards them. Apprehending danger to their lives and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document