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

2005 Supreme(Raj) 1094

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : V.K. Bali, Harbans Lal
Harbans Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1643 of 2002
Decided On : 04/28/2005

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Biri Singh with Mr. Kamlendra Sihag, M.C. Jain and K.C. Sharma, for the Appellants.
Mr. B.N. Sandu, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Dr. Mahesh Sharma, for the Complainant.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the right of private defence of person and property in the context of the injuries sustained by the parties and the ownership of the land.

Headnote:

Right of Private Defence - Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC, Section 149 IPC, Section 147 IPC, Section 148 IPC, Section 447 IPC, Section 427 IPC, Section 323 IPC, Section 325 IPC, Section 326 IPC - The court discussed various sections of the Indian Penal Code including Section 302, Section 149, Section 147, Section 148, Section 447, Section 427, Section 323, Section 325, and Section 326. The judgment focused on the interpretation of the right of private defence of person and property and its application in the case. The court considered the injuries sustained by the parties and their relevance to the right of private defence, ultimately influencing the court's decision.

Fact of the Case:

An occurrence took place at Village Delawas resulting in the death of one person and injuries to 20 others. The appellants claimed that they acted in self-defence, while the prosecution alleged that they constituted an unlawful assembly and attacked the complainant party. The case revolved around the question of whether the appellants caused the death and injuries in exercise of their right of private defence or committed various offences.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the injuries sustained by the parties, the version of events presented by both sides, and the ownership of the land where the occurrence took place. The court found the appellants guilty of various offences under the Indian Penal Code, including Section 302 IPC, Section 147 IPC, Section 148 IPC, and others. The court also disposed of two criminal appeals and a criminal revision in a common order.

Issues: The key issue was whether the appellants acted in self-defence or constituted an unlawful assembly and attacked the complainant party, leading to various offences.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the injuries sustained by the parties, the ownership of the land, and the version of events presented by the prosecution and the appellants. The court's analysis of the right of private defence and its application in the case formed the basis of the decision.

Final Decision: The court held the appellants guilty of various offences under the Indian Penal Code and disposed of the criminal appeals and criminal revision in a common order.

Judgment

V.K. Bali, J.-In an occurrence that took place on 29.09.1993 at Village Delawas, whereas one person from the side of the complainant party namely Motiram lost his life, 20 others were injured. In the same very occurrence, ten persons from the side of the appellants were injured. The only but significant question that arises for adjudication in the present case is as to whether the appellants caused death of one and injured 20 others in exercise of their right of private defence of person and property or that they constituted unlawful assembly and attacked the complainant party, thus committing various offences for which they were tried and held guilty.

2. Prosecution put 40 persons on trial out of whom whereas Laxmi Narain @ Latoor has been held guilty for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life, Ram Swaroop, Narsiram, Gyarsa, Ganga Ram and Punia @ Puniram have been held guilty for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced likewise. All the appellants have also been held guilty and sentenced for various offences as fully detailed below:

Accused Laxmi Narain @ Latoor & Ladu Ram

Under Section 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for 2 months to each of them.

Laxmi Narain @ Latoor, Ladu Ram, Ram Swaroop, Narsi Ram, Gyarsa, Gangaram and Punya @ Puniram.

Under Section 147 IPC One year R.I.

Under Section 148 IPC One year R.I.

Under Section 447 IPC 3 months R.I.

Under Section 427 IPC 6 months R.I.

Under Section 323 IPC 6 months R.I.

Under Section 325 IPC One years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500.-, in default of

payment of fine, one months R.I.

326 IPC 2 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of

payment of fine, further R.I. for one month.

3. Whereas Laxmi Narayan and Ladu have challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Dausa dated 012.2002 by filling D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1643/2002, other appellants Ram Swaroop, Narsi Ram, Gyarsa, Gangaram and Punya @ Puniram have challenged the same very order of conviction and sentence by filing D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1673/2002.

4. Appellants and their co-accused came up with the counter version asserting that they were owner and in possession of the land where the occurrence had taken place and the complainant party had tried to oust them. The complainant party was tried in separate trial and all the accused arrayed in that case have been acquitted resulting into filing of Criminal Revision No. 305/2003. By this common order, we propose to dispose of two criminal appeals and the criminal revision mentioned above.

5. The occurrence leading to the death of one and injuries to 20 as mentioned above took place on 29.09.1993 at 11 a.m. FIR (Exhibit P. 1) with regard to the incident was lodged by Pooran (PW. 1) on the same day at 1 p.m. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties are ad idem that special report with regard to the incident was not sent to the concerned Magistrate at all. In the occurrence aforesaid, whereas Moti Ram lost his life, Kailash, Ramesh, Ram Kishan, Rama, Rukmani, Ramjilal, Gabdu @ Ramavatar, Kalu, Ramjilal, Genda, Manbhari, Devaram, Soni, Manni, Ram Bhajan, Ram Karan and Smt. Bhooli Devi received injuries. From the side of accused, Laxmi Narayan @ Ladu, Lala, Gangaram, Harphool, Puriram, Gyarsa, Revad and Narsi were injured.

6. The FIR lodged by Pooran, when translated into English, reads as follows:

"Respectfully, it is submitted that, we were working in our agricultural fields. Suddenly, 200

persons of Singpura, Abhaneri, Todarwas and Pipaliya came there, out of which Chhitar, Ghasi,

Bhagwana, Laxminarain, Sanwal Ram, Kishore, Kori Lal, Rooplya, Parsa, Dola, Panchya, Kalu,

Sitaram, Moolya, Hari, Gopal, Kalu, Laduram, Narsing, Partyo, Nathu, Ramratan, Revad, Mangya,

Badri, Gopal, Chhitar, Chhajyo, Lacchyo, Ganga Ram, Janyo, Laxmi Narain, Lala, Babu,

Bhagwana, Chhotu etc. were belonging to Singpura; Ma









































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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