1987 Supreme(Raj) 877
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.N.Bhargava, G.K.Sharma, JJ.
Bhabhuti and Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Cri. Appeal No. 287 of 1985 and D.B. Cri. Jail Appeal No. 300 of 1985.
Decided On : 30-10-1987
Advocates:
For the Appellant:A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the State:Nathu Lal Pareek, Addl. Govt. Advocate, PP.
A person has the right to defend their possession against unlawful interference, and any injuries caused in the exercise of that right may not be considered intentional murder.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Murder - Section 302, 302/34 IPC - Possession of Land - Right of Defence of Property - Delay in Lodging FIR - Non-Explanation - Suspicion - Acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of murder under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC for causing fatal injuries to the deceased during a dispute over possession of land. The prosecution relied on the testimony of two eyewitnesses, the deceased's wife and daughter, who claimed to have witnessed the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the possession of the deceased over the land where the incident occurred. The land was in the possession of the accused persons, and the deceased was attempting to interfere with their possession. The court held that the accused persons had the right to defend their possession, and any injuries caused in the exercise of that right could not be considered intentional murder.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the possession of the deceased over the land where the incident occurred. 2. Whether the accused persons had the right to defend their possession against the deceased's interference. 3. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and other discrepancies in the prosecution's case created suspicion and doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the revenue records and the testimony of the SHO to establish that the land was in the possession of the accused persons. The oral statements of the eyewitnesses regarding the purchase of the land from the accused persons' father were found to be insufficient to prove the deceased's possession. 2. The court held that the accused persons had the right to defend their possession against the deceased's interference. The deceased was attempting to take possession of the land without any legal right, and the accused persons were entitled to use reasonable force to prevent him. 3. The court found that the delay in lodging the FIR, the discrepancies in the eyewitnesses' statements, and the alterations in the FIR and inquest report created suspicion and doubt about the genuineness and correctness of the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT
1. - D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 287/85 is a Representative Appeal while D. B. Cr. Appeal No. 300/85 is Jail Appeal. As both these appeals are against the same judjement, so they are disposed of by this common judjement. The appellants have preferred these appeals against the judjement dated 23-5-1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur Camp Gangapur City convicting the appellants Bhabhuti under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and Chotey under Section 302/34 IPC. Both these appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo two months' R.I.
2. Smt. Bitiya w/o deceased Narain Singh lodged a report on 15th November, 1983 at 5 p.m. at Police Station Mandrayal. According to this report Narain Singh was working in the agricultural field situated in village Tokeypura and was giving water in the field from the well. At that time Mst. Bitiya, her daughter Rambeti and her mother-in-law Anar Bai were also working there. At that time the accused persons were also there and they told Narain Singh not to give water as they will give water to their field first. Shri Narain Singh denied and the accused-persons entered in the field and tried to take Narain Singh by force. Narain Singh tried to run away from there and when he was running, he was caught in the field of the accused Bhabhuti where Bhabhuti caused injuries by spade on his head and accused Chotya caused injuries by Lathis. Narain Singh died at the spot. When Mst. Bitiya and others tried to rescue Narain Singh, they were also threatened by the accused-persons. After beating, the accused-persons ran away towards village. They went near the dead body where number of persons of the village had also arrived. On this report the Police registered a case under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and started investigation.
3. Laxman Prasad PW 5, who was posted as Head Constable at the Police Station recorded the report lodged by Smt. Bitiya and that report is Ex. D 1. The Head Constable also entered the FIR in the register which is Ex. P 16. The SHO Ramhet Singh PW 4 during investigation inspected the site and prepared site-plan Ex. P 1. The inquest report Ex. P 2 was also prepared. The accused-persons were arrested and on the information given by them the Investigating Officer recovered a spade and a Lathi. The accused Chotey also received injuries so his medical examination was also done. Dr. Puspendra Nath Sharma PW 6 conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Narain Singh. The post mortem report is Ex. P 16. According to the doctor's opinion the cause of death is coma and such as a result of severe injuries to the head caused by the sharp weapon.
4. The SHO after completing the investigation submitted challan against the accused-persons under Section 302 & 302/34 IPC. The trial court framed charge against accused Bhabhuti under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and against accused Chotey under Section 302/34, IPC. Both the accused-persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution has examined 6 witnesses to establish its case. The accused-persons have denied the allegations. They have not examined any defence witness.
6. The learned Sessions Judge after concluding trial and hearing both the learned Counsel found that the prosecution has proved its case and he convicted appellant Bhabhuti under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and appellant Chotey under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced as mentioned above.
7. We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned Counsel. We have also perused the judjement of the Trial Court and the prosecution evidence as well as the record of this case.
8. In this case Mst. Bitiya PW 1 and Rambeti PW 2 have been examined as eye-witnesses. No other witness has been produced by the prosecution. Mst. Anar Bai, the mother-in-law of Smt. Bitiya PW 1 i.e. mother of Narain Singh (deceased) who was also present at the time of occurrence as alleged by Mst. Bitiya, ha
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
