1987 Supreme(Raj) 707

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.N.Bhargava, G.K.Sharma, JJ.
Banshilal and Others - Appellants
Versus
The State - Respondent
D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 517 of 1984.
Decided On : 5-08-1987

The right of private defense of property and person extends to resisting an unlawful assembly or intrusion upon possession that has never been lost, even if the rightful owner is not in actual possession at the time.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 148, 326, 324, 323, IPC - FACT OF THE CASE: Dispute over possession of mortgaged land led to a scuffle resulting in the death of two persons from the complainant party. Accused persons claimed to be in possession of the land and alleged that the complainant party obstructed them from ploughing the field. The trial court convicted the accused under various sections of the IPC, including Section 302 for murder. ISSUES: Whether the accused persons had the right to private defense of property and person. Whether the accused intended to cause death or formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of murder. RATIO DECIDENDI: The court held that the accused persons were in possession of the disputed field and were ploughing it when the complainant party arrived and obstructed them. The scuffle that ensued resulted in injuries to both sides, unfortunately leading to the death of two persons from the complainant party. The court found that the accused did not intend to cause death or form an unlawful assembly with the common object of murder. The injuries received by the accused party indicated their right to private defense of property and person. FINAL DECISION: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellants, and acquitted them. MAIN LEGAL POINT: The right of private defense of property and person extends to resisting an unlawful assembly or intrusion upon possession that has never been lost, even if the rightful owner is not in actual possession at the time.

Fact of the Case:

Dispute over possession of mortgaged land led to a scuffle resulting in the death of two persons from the complainant party. Accused persons claimed to be in possession of the land and alleged that the complainant party obstructed them from ploughing the field. The trial court convicted the accused under various sections of the IPC, including Section 302 for murder.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the accused persons were in possession of the disputed field and were ploughing it when the complainant party arrived and obstructed them. The scuffle that ensued resulted in injuries to both sides, unfortunately leading to the death of two persons from the complainant party. The court found that the accused did not intend to cause death or form an unlawful assembly with the common object of murder. The injuries received by the accused party indicated their right to private defense of property and person.

Issues: Whether the accused persons had the right to private defense of property and person. Whether the accused intended to cause death or formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of murder.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused persons were in possession of the disputed field and were ploughing it when the complainant party arrived and obstructed them. The scuffle that ensued resulted in injuries to both sides, unfortunately leading to the death of two persons from the complainant party. The court found that the accused did not intend to cause death or form an unlawful assembly with the common object of murder. The injuries received by the accused party indicated their right to private defense of property and person.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellants, and acquitted them.