Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia and J.K. Ranka, JJ.
Devilal and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 927 of 2011 and D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 16 of 2011
Decided On : 17-03-2016
CRIMINAL LAW - Right of Private Defence - Possession of Property - Section 103, 105, 302, 304 Pt. I, 341, 323, 325 IPC - Interpretation and Application - Joint Possession of Field - Dispute over Land - Single Blow Causing Death - Conversion of Conviction from Murder to Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder - Acquittal of Co-Accused for Lack of Common Intention - Probation Granted to Co-Accused after Seven Years of Occurrence.
Fact of the Case:
A land dispute between the deceased Palaram and his nephew Devilal led to a violent confrontation in a field where both parties claimed possession. Devilal, along with his son, wife, and an employee, attacked Palaram and his family members with iron rods and sticks, causing injuries to multiple individuals, including Palaram, who later succumbed to his injuries. The prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and a site plan to establish the facts of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the field where the incident occurred was jointly owned by Palaram and Devilal, and that both parties had houses in the vicinity. The court also noted that there was a pending lawsuit and an injunction order restraining the complainant party from interfering with the possession of the accused. However, the court could not determine whether the injunction was still in effect on the date of the incident.
Issues: 1. Whether Devilal had the right of private defence to evict the deceased and his family from the disputed field, given that he was in possession of the field and had obtained an injunction order. 2. Whether Section 34 IPC, which deals with common intention, was applicable in this case, considering that both parties genuinely believed and asserted their possession over the disputed field.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the right of private defence of property, as defined in Section 105 IPC, extends to causing death only if the complainant party commits the offense of house trespass. In this case, since the field was in joint possession and both parties claimed ownership, the accused could not claim complete self-defense. 2. The court found that Section 34 IPC, which deals with common intention, was not applicable in this case because the parties were asserting their possession over the field and there was no evidence of a common intention to cause murder.
Final Decision: The court converted the conviction of the principal accused, Devilal, from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Pt. I IPC), considering that he had caused only a single blow to the deceased's head. The court also acquitted Devilal for the offense under Section 325/34 IPC, which deals with causing grievous hurt with common intention. The court upheld the conviction and sentence of Devilal for offenses under Sections 341 and 323 IPC, which relate to wrongful restraint and causing simple hurt. The court acquitted the co-accused, Jasveer Singh, Radheyshyam, and Smt. Shakuntala Devi, for the offense of murder under Section 302/34 IPC, but upheld their conviction and sentence for offenses under Sections 341, 323, and 325 IPC. Considering that seven years had passed since the incident, the court released the co-accused on probation for a period of one year, subject to furnishing personal bonds and sureties.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
1. Devilal @ Devaram alongwith his son Radheyshyam, wife Smt. Shakuntala and their employee Jasveer Singh were sent for trial for causing murder of Palaram and injuries to Smt. Ginni Devi (P.W. 10) wife of Palaram, Roshni Devi (P.W. 9) daughter-in-law of Palaram and Smt. Sajna Devi (P.W. 11) daughter of Palaram. Parties in the present case are closely related. Palaram, deceased is uncle (Chacha) of principal accused Devilal @ Devaram. A land dispute was pending between the deceased Palaram and Devilal @ Devaram nephew of Palaram. Devilal @ Devaram in his testimony appearing as D.W. 1 has relied upon a suit (Ex. D. 4) filed by him and also order of injunction (Ex. D. 8) dated 12.4.2007 to assert that he was in possession of the field where the occurrence had taken place; hence, he had a right of private defence to evict the deceased Palaram, his wife, daughter-in-law and daughter who had allegedly trespassed into the field in his possession.
2. In the present appeal, we have been called upon to answer the following two questions:-
(a). Whether in the disputed field where occurrence had taken place, was in possession of the appellant and if so, he has a right of self defence to cause death of Palaram?
(b). Whether in the circumstances where both the parties genuinely believe and assert their possession over the disputed field, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted or not?
3. Before we endeavour to answer above two questions, it will be necessary for us to recapitulate the brief facts of the case.
4. Roshni Devi (P.W. 9) injured daughter-in-law of deceased Palaram made a statement (Ex. P. 27) before ASI Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 13). Bhagirath Singh appearing in court as P.W. 13 deposed that on 5.9.2008 he was posted as ASI at Police Station Bagad. Investigation of the case was entrusted to him and he recorded statement of Roshni Devi (P.W. 9) at B.D.K. Hospital, Jhunjhunu on 5.9.2008 at 7.40 P.M. ASI Bhagirath Singh (P.W. 13) has proved on record statement of Roshni Devi (P.W. 9) as Exhibit-P. 27. On the basis of statement of Roshni Devi (P.W. 9) Exhibit-P. 27, formal FIR (Ex. P. 30) bearing FIR No. 145/08 was registered at Police Station Bagad for offences under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC. Palaram died on 11.9.2008 at 10.00 P.M. at SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Therefore, subsequently offence under Section 302 IPC was added.
5. Upon death of Palaram on the basis of statement made by Roshni Devi (P.W. 9), present four appellants were sent for trial. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jhunjhunu vide impugned judgment dated 11.11.2010 convicted all the accused except Devilal @ Devaram for offences under Sections 341, 323, 325/34 and 302/34 IPC. In the present case, Palaram had suffered injuries on the head leading to his death. The said injuries on the head of Palaram deceased are attributed to Devilal @ Devaram. Hence, Devilal @ Devaram is substantively convicted for offence of murder.
6. Having convicted the appellants for above said offences vide a separate order of even date, the trial Judge sentenced the accused-appellants as under:-
Accused-appellant, Devilal @ Devaram
"U/s. 341 IPC: One month simple imprisonment.
U/s. 323 IPC: Six months simple imprisonment.
U/s. 325/34 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to undergo two months simple imprisonment.
U/s. 302 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo four months simple imprisonment."
Accused-appellants, Jasveer Singh, Radheyshyam and Smt. Shakuntala Devi
"U/s. 341 IPC: One month simple imprisonment each.
U/s. 323 IPC: Six months simple imprisonment each.
U/s. 325/34 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to undergo two months simple imprisonment each.
U/s. 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo four months simple imprisonment each."
7.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
