Back
2005 Supreme(Raj) 1108
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble V.K. BALI & HARBANS LAL, JJ.
Laxmi Narain @ Latoor - Appellant
Versus
The State of Raj. and Ladu - Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1643 of 2002
Decided On : April 28, 2005
Biri Singh with Kamlendra Sihag, M.C. Jain and K.C. Sharma, for Appellants B.N. Sandu, Public Prosecutor for State Mahesh Sharma, for Complainant
Headnote:Penal Code, Sec. 97 read with Secs. 302, 302/149, 147, 148, 447, 427, 323, 325 and 326 – Right of private defence of person and property – Dispute over agriculture land – Accused appellants were in possession of the land – caused death of one person and injuries to 20 others of complainant party – 10 persons from accused-appellant side also sustained multiple injuries but remained unexplained – Convicted – Held – Complainant party was aggressor – Accused appellant had reasonable apprchension of being caused grievous hurt and one of them was actually caused grievous hurt – It cannot be measured in golden scale – Not exceeded the right of private defence of person and property – Entitled to the benefit of doubt – Acquitted.
Right of private defence of property and person cannot be measured in golden scales or in other words, it cannot be modulated step by step. It is also too well settled that burden of proving that the alleged offence falls to the exception of exercise of right of private defence lies on the accused but the said burden can be discharged on the basis of preponderence of probabilities and the accused has to only satisfy the standard of a prudent man. It is once again too well settled that where the accused had pleaded right of private defence and might have sustained injuries in the same incident in which members of the prosecution party have sustained injuries and if there is no explanation for their injuries given by the prosecution, the Court cannot lightly ignore such a plea.(Para 69)
(2). Prosecution put 40 persons on trial out of whom whereas Laxmi Narayan @ Latoor has been held guilty for an offence u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to life, Ram Swaroop, Narsiram, Gyarsa, Ganga Ram and Punia @ Puniram have been held guilty for offence u/s 302 read with Sec. 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 and Ladu Ram
U/s 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.
U/s 147 IPC One year RI
U/s 148 IPC One year RI
U/s 447 IPC 3 months RI
U/s 427 IPC 6 months RI
U/s 323 IPC 6 months RI
U/s 325IPC One years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, one months RI.
U/s 326 IPC 2 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI 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 9.12.2002 by filing 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 29.9.1993 at 11 a.m. FIR (Ex.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, Narsinga, Partyo, Nathu, Ramratan, Revad, Mangya, Badri, Gopal, Chhitar, Chhaijyo, Lacchyo, Ganga Ram, Janyo, Laxmi Narain, Lala, Babu, Bhagwana, Chhotu etc., were belonging to Singpura; Mahadeva, Bhagwana, Kishan, Janyo, Ram Karan, Mangla, Pappu were belonging to Todarwas and Revad who came there with h
