SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 1061

2009(5) Supreme 216
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Ram Pat & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Haryana — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 581 of 2007
Decided on : 12-05-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
If a person purchases undivided share in a joint property, he does not acquire any right to obtain possession of the same but merely a right to sue for partition.
Non explanation of simple injuries suffered by the accused would not be fatal.
Plea of right of private defence need not be specifically raised.

Headnote:(a) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 44 – If a person purchases undivided share in a joint property, he does not acquire any right to obtain possession of the same – Such a person merely acquires a right to sue for partition. (Para 12)

        AIR 1966 SC 470; (2008) 7 SCC 46; 2009 (2) SCALE 461 – Relied upon.

        (1966) 1 SCR 606 – Distinguished.

        (b) Mutation Laws – Entries made in the revenue records are not decisive for proving actual possession. (Para 13)

        1926 Privy Council 100 – Relied upon.

        (c) Settled Possession – Attributes culled out – All these four attributes ought to be read conjunctively. (Para 14)

        (1975) 4 SCC 518; (1968) 2 SCR 455; (2004) 1 SCC 769 – Relied upon.

        (d) Indian Evidence Act, 1882 – Section 3 – Well settled that whereas grievous injuries suffered by the accused are required to be explained by the prosecution, simple injuries need not – Non explanation of simple injuries of the nature suffered by the accused would not be fatal. (Para 15)

        2009 (4) SCALE 103 – Relied upon.

        (e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – If occurrence of the incident stands admitted, even if some delay has been caused in writing of the FIR, the same would not render the entire prosecution case suspicious. (Para 17)

        (f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 96 – Plea of right of private defence need not be specifically raised – Such a right cannot always be claimed only because some of the accused persons have suffered injuries even if they are simple. (Paras 18 and 19)

        (2005) 12 SCC 657; (2006) 11 SCC 434; 2008 (10) SCALE 728; 2008 (16) SCALE 45; 2008 (7) scale 633 – Relied upon.

        (g) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – If two views are possible, the Appellate Court should not interfere with a judgment of acquittal. (Para 21)

        2009 (4) SCALE 343; 2009 (4) SCALE 343 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

        1. Occurrence took place on the land comprised of Khasra No.24/8/1 situated at village Nawadi. Harda Ram (the deceased) claimed himself to be the co-owner and in possession of the said land for a long time. He claimed right thereon on the basis of khasra girdawaries.

        2. Appellants, claimed to be in possession thereover in terms of the aforementioned deed of sale dated 7.5.1993 and 24.5.1993. According to the prosecution, however, the deceased was in possession of the land and after the execution of the said deeds of sale, it was the accused persons who had tried to enter into the suit land and plough it.

        3. The prosecution case was that he was ploughing his agricultural land with his tractor on or about 14.7.1993. His father Harda Ram (“the deceased” for short) was also standing in the field. Sheo Ram, Daya Ram, Bajrang and Raja Ram armed with lathies and Ram Pat and Balwant armed with Jellies came at the spot and assaulted Harda Ram.

        4. Harda Ram died on the same day.

        5. The learned trial judge recorded a judgment of acquittal.

        6. The High Court, however, by reason of the impugned judgment reversed the said judgment of the trial court.

       Finding of the Court :

        Accused cannot be held to be in settled possession so as to enable them to claim a right of private defence in respect of the property.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1. Appellants, four in number, are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 14.2.2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.298-DBA of 1997, in terms whereof a judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul in case No.27 of 1993 was set aside.

2. We may, at the outset, notice that eight persons were arrayed as accused in the aforementioned case. The High Court, however, did not grant special leave in respect of accused Nos.6 to 8. Accused No.1 died during the pendency of the trial. Accused Nos.2 to 5 only are, therefore, before us.

3. The prosecution case is as under:

Daya Ram and Ram Pat, along with Rajinder, Surinder and Mukesh alias Manoj had purchased 1/36th share of the right of the owners in the land measuring 264 kanals, 12 marlas comprised of Khewat No.10, Khatauni No.69 mustkil and Killa No.24/27 and 1/48th share of 37 kanals 8 marlas of land by reason of a deed of sale dated 7.5.1993. They are said to have purchased 1/18th undivided share in the land measuring 264 kanals 12 marlas and 1/24th share of land measuring 2 kanals 5 marlas totaling 14 kanals 14 marlas of land by reason of a deed of sale dated 24.5.1993. Allegedly, they sowed some Bajra crop therein.

Occurrence is said to have taken place on the land comprised of Khasra No.24/8/1 situated at village Nawadi. Harda Ram (the deceased) claimed himself to be the co-owner and in possession of the said land for a long time. He claimed right thereon on the basis of khasra girdawaries.

Appellants, as noticed hereinbefore, claimed to be in possession thereover in terms of the aforementioned deed of sale dated 7.5.1993 and 24.5.1993.

According to the prosecution, however, the deceased was in possession of the land and after the execution of the said deeds of sale, it was the accused persons who had tried to enter into the suit land and plough it.

The prosecution case, as disclosed in the FIR lodged by P.W.8 - Rajbir, was that he was ploughing his agricultural land with his tractor on or about 14.7.1993. His father Harda Ram (“the deceased” for short) was also standing in the field. Sheo Ram, Daya Ram, Bajrang and Raja Ram armed with lathies and Ram Pat and Balwant armed with Jellies came at the spot. The entire occurrence as would appear from the depositions of the prosecution witnesses before the court lasted for hardly two to two and half minutes.

Ram Pat is said to have given a jelli blow on the head of the deceased; Sheo Ram inflicted a lathi blow above his eyes; Balwant Singh gave jelli blow on the back of his neck (Gudhi); Daya Ram inflicted a lathi blow on his back and Bajrang also inflicted a lathi blow on his person.

In the FIR, Rajbir further stated that in the meanwhile his uncle Lal Singh, his aunt Dhankauri wife of Lal Singh and his sister Mamli, who were fetching water from a water tap situated nearby, had arrived at the scene of occurrence. Basanti and Santosh armed with lathis came there. Whereas Basanti dealt a lathi blow on the head of Mamli, Santosh gave a lathi blow on the person of Dhankauri. P.W. 8 further stated that Raja Ram also inflicted a lathi blow on the person of Lal Singh. The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by Ami Lal son of Sohan and Ram Avtar son of Bhuru Ram, who intervened and rescued them from the clutches of the accused and thereafter the accused persons left the spot with their weapons. P.W. 8 further alleged that after getting the injured admitted in the Primary Health Centre, Ateli, he proceeded towards the Police Station for lodging the FIR. His statement was recorded at 1.50 p.m.

The deceased was, however, taken to Civil Hospital, Narnaul. Head Constable Kailash Chand (P.W. 13) came to learn thereabout on reaching Primary Health Centre, Ateli. He recorded the statement of Dhankauri, Mamli and Lal Singh. He thereafter came to Civil Hospital, Narnaul with a view to examine the d














































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top