Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1843

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
Kasturji Modaji Mali & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State Of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2007 With R/Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2007
Decided On : 04-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ms. Archana R. Acharya.
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhijit Rathod for Mr. Mehul H. Rathod, Public Prosecutor.

The right of self-defense applies in property disputes if ownership is established, allowing acquittals under relevant IPC sections.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 104, 326, 323, 324, 147, 148, 149 - Self-defence - Right to protect property - The court set aside convictions based on findings that property ownership disputes existed, allowing for self-defence under the relevant sections of IPC. Notably, cases supported the acknowledgment of private defense in property-related offenses (Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14).

(B) Compounding of offences - Acquittals for sections pertaining to compounded offenses were permitted upon mutual agreement between the parties, recognizing legal rights regarding property defense (Paras 10, 15).

Facts of the case:
The dispute originated from land ownership and a violent altercation involving weapons. Civil settlement among parties made the criminal disputes moot.

Findings of Court:
Convictions under non-compoundable sections were set aside while allowing parties to compound others based on mutual accord.

Issues: Determination of self-defense rights, property ownership, and implications of civil settlement on criminal charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court validated self-defence claims correlating with property rights under IPC, stating legitimate defense actions considered during land disputes prompted acquittals (based on civil adjudications).

Result: Appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. the dispute involved land ownership and a subsequent violent altercation. (Para 2 , 3 , 6)
2. affidavits confirming mutual settlement of disputes and criminal actions were filed. (Para 4 , 5 , 8)
3. the court acknowledges the right to self-defense based on property ownership. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. convictions were set aside based on the validity of self-defense claims. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

ORDER :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Criminal Appeal no.363 of 2007 is represented by Ms. Archana Acharya, learned advocate for the respective appellants and Criminal Appeal no.238 of 2007 is represented by Mr. Abhijit Rathod, learned advocate for Mr. Mehul Rathod, learned advocate for the respective appellants.

2. Both the learned advocates have submitted that the dispute between the parties was with regard to survey no.262 of Village Damasim, Taluka and District Banaskantha. Learned advocate has submitted that the civil proceedings were initiated and submitted that the accused of Criminal Appeal no.363 of 2007, being the owners of the land, were doing agricultural work and the accused of Criminal Appeal no.238 of 2007 entered the land and in such defence to protect the land, owner of survey no.262 defended themselves in the property against the accused and the accused of Criminal Appeal no.238 of 2007 had used weapons to defend themselves and during the course of the scuffle, Dinesh Mali, Kasturji Mali, Ashuram Prajapati had sustained grievous injuries. Both the learned advocates referred to Sessions Case no.55 of 2004, where the accused, who are nine in number, were charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506(2) and 427 of IPC. After the trial, the learned Trial Court acquitted all the accused under Sections 504, 506(2) read with Section 149 IPC and convicted all the accused under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 427 read with Section 149 IPC by order dated 19.1.2007.

3. Sessions Case no.26 of 2004 was tried against six accused under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 326, 504 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2^nd Fast Track Court, Deesa on the very same day i.e. on 19.1.2007, acquitted the accused under Sections 307, 504 read with Section 149 IPC, while convicted the accused under Sections 147 , 148, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 149 IPC.

4. Accused no.1 of Sessions Case no.55 of 2004 who is the appellant no.1 in Criminal Appeal no.238 of 2007 since deceased, the son Ashokji has filed affidavit along with the copy of the death certificate of Mafaji Dhanaji Mali, which shows the date of death as 25.12.2018. In view of the death and affidavit which is attached along with the copy of the death certificate and when the other side does not dispute the death, name of the appellant no.1 – Mafaji Dhanaji Mali in Criminal Appeal no.238 of 2007 is ordered to be deleted as abated.

5. The affidavits are produced by both the sides, which are of Ashokji Mali, Narsinhji Mali, Ishwarji Mali, Sonaji Mali, Kailashkumar Mali, Prabhuji Mali, Ishwarji Mali and Pratapji Mali in Criminal Appeal no.363 of 2007.

6. In Criminal Appeal no.238 of 2007, Modaji Chelaji Tank, Kasturji Modaji Tank, Rajubhai Modaji Tank, Dineshbhai Modaji Tank, Aasuram Tank and Mohanji Modaji Tank have filed the affidavits. All the accused of both the matters are present before this Court and have affirmed the contents of the affidavit and that they have stated that the affidavits have been executed on their free will without any pressure. Since the issue was regarding the ownership right of the land property, both the parties as complainant in inter-se matter have stated that they have settled all their issues with regard to agricultural land and now they have no grievance and the civil disputes are over, there is no dissatisfaction or any agony in the family, all the matters have been amicably settled and since both the sides have large family, they now want peace in the Village and are repenting the criminal action.

7. Mr. Rohankumar H. Raval, lear