JUDGMENT

K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.:—There are seven appellants. They along with three others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 and also under Section 147, I. P.C. The trial Court convicted all of them. On appeal, the High Court acquitted three of them but convicted the seven appellants under Section 304, Part I read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo three years R.I. The conviction under Section 147, I.P.C. However, was set aside. The High Court held that these appellants exceeded the right of private defence.

2. The accused, two deceased persons in the case and the material witnesses belong to Mahjiladib Village in Hazaribagh District. A piece of land - Plot No. 866 was the subject matter of dispute between appellant No. 1 and the prosecution party. On 29-8-69 P.W. 3 and his men were engaged in agricultural operation in that land. While so the accused persons came and started beating up P.W. 3 and his men Three of the appellants were armed with Tangis and one of them was armed with a spade and the rest were armed with sticks and they attacked the two deceased persons who were working in the field and they also attacked some of the other witnesses.

3. The plea of the accused was that they were in possession of plot No. 866 and on the day of occurrence the two deceased persons along with others armed came there to dispossess them and also inflicted injuries on two of the accused persons. P.W. 4, the Doctor examined the two accused persons. On accused Dayal Mahton he found some simple injuries on the wrist and on hands. On accused Baijnath Mahton, the Doctor found one lacerated wound on the right side of head with slight fracture.

4. The prosecution examined a number of eye-witnesses and their evidence establishes that the occurrence took place in the disputed field. The High Court after considering the evidence held that the accused had a right of private defence of property and person but ultimately held that they have exceeded the same.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that in exercise of the right of private defence, the accused cannot be expected to weigh the same in golden scales and modulate their defence but having regard to the fact that two deceased persons received serious injuries and died and some witnesses also received injuries, the High Court has rightly held that the accused exceeded the right of private defence. Having gone through the record we are in agreement with the finding of the High Court.

6. The occurrence took place in the year 1969. Therefore, we think that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to two years R.I. The appellants, who are on bail shall surrender and serve out the remaining period of the sentence of two years, if any Subject to this modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed.

Order accordingly.

For Citation:  AIR 1993 SC 2323