Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, AMBUJ NATH, JJ.
Fulchand Sahu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 149 of 1993
Decided on : 24-08-2023
Right of Private Defence - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302/149, 307/149
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of a villager and injuring others during a land dispute. The appellants claimed to have acted in self-defence as they were being dispossessed of their land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased died a homicidal death and the injured sustained injuries due to assault by the appellants. However, it concluded that the appellants were well within their right to exercise the right of private defence of property as provided under section 103 of the Indian Penal Code. The court held that the appellants were erroneously held guilty and allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Issues: Whether the deceased died a homicidal death, whether the appellants caused the death, and whether the occurrence took place in exercise of the right of private defence of property by the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence of the land dispute, injuries sustained, and the right of private defence of property under section 103 of the Indian Penal Code. It found that the appellants were well within their right to exercise self-defence and were erroneously held guilty.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside. The appellants were ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned lawyer appearing for the appellants and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.08.1993, passed by Sri G.K. Verma, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gumla, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 96 of 1988, arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No. 85 of 1987, corresponding to G.R. No. 295 of 1987, whereby and wherein, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gumla held the appellants, guilty of the offences under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 7 years for the offence under section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Etwa Oraon alleging therein that on 03.06.1987 at about 10:00 A.M., he was sowing paddy in his field when he heard the sound of beating of drums, on which he went towards the Pokhar and saw that the appellants alongwith the other accused persons were ploughing the land for sowing paddy. When the villagers protested the appellants and 10 to 12 other accused persons started assaulting the villagers. Tulsi Sao assaulted Mangra Oraon by Balua due to which he succumbed to his injuries, appellant Ful Chand Sao assaulted Karma Oraon by lathi causing injuries and when the informant started fleeing from the place of occurrence. The appellant Radhe Sao shot an arrow causing injury on his hand.
4. After investigation, the investigating officer found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellants under sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 307/ 325 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned C.J.M., Gumla after taking cognizance of the case committed this case to the court of sessions on 18.01.1988 as it was exclusively triable by Sessions Court.
5. Charge was framed against the appellants on 08.05.1990, under Sections 302/ 149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.
7. Sukar Bhagat P.W.1 has supported the prosecution case. Etwa Oraon P.W.2 is the informant of this case. He has also supported the prosecution case, he is an injured witness. Karma Oraon P.W. 3 is an eye witness. He is also an injured witness. He has also supported the prosecution case. Bhim Oraon P.W. 4 is witness of inquest, Shankar Bhagat P.W.5 is another eye witness who has supported the prosecution case. Krishna Bhagat P.W.6 is a witness of inquest. Budhni Kumari P.W.7 is wife of the deceased Mangra Oraon. She is a hearsay witness. Thuiya Oraon P.W.8. is a witness of seizure relating to seizure of blood stained soil and clothes from the place of occurrence. He has proved the seizure list which has been marked as Ext.-2. Bisu Kharia P.W.9. is a tendered witness, Kunda Bhagat P.W.11 is also a tendered witness. Dr. Hemant Kumar P.W. 12 has examined the injured persons. He has also proved the injury report of Karma Oraon which is Ext.- 3. He has also proved the injury report of Etwa Oraon which is Ext. 3/A. Pandru Bhagat P.W. 13 is another hearsay witness. Jaura Oraon P.W. 14 is also a hearsay witness Munshi Bhagat P.W. 15 is the son of the deceased Mangra Oraon. Dr. Jogendra Prasad Sanga P.W. 16 has performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has proved the postmortem report which is Ext.- 4. Raj Narain Singh P.W. 17 is the investigating officer of this case he has proved the fardbeyan which is Ext.- 5. He has also proved the inquest report which is Ext.- 6. He has further proved the requisition for examining the injured persons namely Karma Oraon and Etwa Oraon which are Ext.- 7 series. He has proved the
The central legal point established is the right of private defence of property under section 103 of the Indian Penal Code, and its application in cases of land disputes and self-defence.
The judgment establishes that a concerted attack resulting in death, supported by credible eyewitness testimony, constitutes sufficient grounds for conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, regardles....
The right to private defense can be invoked in property disputes, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, including the consideration of mutual injuries and the context of the a....
The importance of ocular testimony over medical evidence and the application of Section 34 of the IPC in proving common intention.
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
