The main legal point established in the judgment is that while individuals have the right to private defence of their property, causing death in excess of this right constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2014, passed by the Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the learned First Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 307/149 (three times) & 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.100/-, imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.200/- (in three times) and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- to each of the appellants with default stipulations respectively.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is this that on the date of incident i.e. 31.5.2010, complainant – Sukhchand (PW-2), father of deceased - Harish Chand, brother Niluram (PW-7), mother Rajo (PW-10), Mandhar Kashyap (PW-3) and Mannu had been to the agricultural field at about 7:00 am for sowing the seeds. At about 8:00 am, the appellants came on the spot armed with bow and arrow, axe, battle axe and clubs, who argued with the complainant and others, used abusive words. Thereafter, all of them surrounded deceased – Harish Chand and assaulted him with axe, battle axe and clubs. Mandhar Kashyap (PW-3), Mannu and Niluram (PW-7) made an attempt to intervene and rescue the deceased, who were inflicted incised injuries by the appellants. Information was given to the police. The police arrived on the spot and Dehati Nalisi (Ex. P-4) was lodged on the information given by Sukhchand (PW-2). Morgue intimation (Ex.P-5) was also recorded at the same time. Inquest procedure was conducted, crime details form was prepared vide (Ex. P-6) and the inquest report was also prepared vide (Ex.P-17). The body of the deceased was subjected to autopsy. Dr. Virendra Kumar Jha (PW-1) has opined vide his report (Ex.P-1A) that the cause of death of the deceased was shock, which was caused due to hemorrhage resulting from the injuries found on the neck of the deceased and the death of deceased – Harish Chand was homicidal. The unnumbered morgue intimation vide (Ex.P-4) was recorded and on that basis numbered morgue intimation vide (Ex.P-25) was also recorded. Appellant No.1 – Mehtar was taken into custody and interrogated, who made a statement of discovery of an axe, battle axe, bow and arrow and club etc. At his instance vide memorandum (Ex.P-7) and on being presented by him, 2 bows, 1 battle axe, 2 axes and one club were seized vide (Ex. P-8). The injured witnesses, namely, Mandhar Kashyap (PW-3), Niluram (PW-7) and Mannu were medically examined and the MLC reports Ex.P-18, P-19 and P-33 were obtained. The blood-stained soil and the plain soil were seized from the spot of the incident vide Ex. P/28. The clothes of the deceased which were preserved by the doctor conducting postmortem were seized vide Ex. P-29. The seized articles were examined by the Medical Officer and thereafter, the same were sent for FSL examination as well. A spot map was also prepared by the Revenue Officer, Patwari. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court.

3. After completion of committal proceedings, learned Sessions Judge took cognizance in the case and framed charges under Sections 148, 307/149, 302/149 of the IPC against the appellants. The appellants pleaded innocence and denied the charges. The prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. On completion of prosecution evidence, the appellants/accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which the appellants denied all the incriminating evidence against them and again they made a statement of innocence and false implication. They also made a statement in defence that the disputed land was in possession of the appellants and they had title on the same, on which, the complainant