A person in possession has a right to protect his possession. If another person has entered the land behind the back of the person in possession, the latter has right to throw out the intruder. In doing so, however, the force used has to be limited to the extent prescribed u/s. 103 of IPC. In case of trespass on immovable property, the right will be only to use such force as is sufficient to exclude the intruder.

( 1 ) THESE three appeals arise from one judgment dated 29th December 1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar is Sessions Trial No. 113/83 whereby all the 17 accused persons except Harisingh and Roopsingh were acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307 and 324 while Harisingh and Roop Singh were convicted for the offence under Section 304, Part-I of Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to 4 years R. I. , each and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of fine they were ordered to undergo further R. I. for one year. Even these two accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307 and 324, I. P. C.

( 2 ) ALL the accused were tried for the charge of forming an unlawful assembly on 11-10-81, the common object of which was to murder Bhagwan Singh, the deceased and his other family members and further charge of rioting by attacking on Bhagwan Singh and others armed with deadly weapons in pursuance of this common object of causing the death of Bhagwan Singh and attempting to murder Bharat Singh. Thus, the charges were for the offences under Sections 145, 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 324/149, IPC. Bhagwan Singh had died due to the injuries caused by the accused persons in prosecution of their common object, but Bharat Singh was somehow saved by the medical treatment although his injuries were sufficient to cause death and injuries with the sharp edged weapons were caused to Sher Singh, Bahadur Singh, Karan Singh and Mullu Singh. The incident occurred in the two fields bearing Khasra No. 71/1 and 71/2. In this trial, only Harisingh and Roopsingh were found guilty for offence under Section 304, IPC. All others were acquitted of the charges on the ground that they had exercised the right of private defence of property and person within permissible limits. Harisingh and Roopsingh were found to have exceeded the right of private defence in causing the death of Bhagwan Singh.

( 3 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 11/87 is by convicted accused Harisingh and Roopsingh while Cr. A. No. No. 329/87 is by the State against Harisingh and Roopsingh under Section 377, Cr. P. C. , against the alleged inadequate sentence awarded to them which was R. I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of fine, further R. I. for one year each. The State pleads for enhancement of sentence up to life imprisonment. Criminal Appeal No. 1306/87 is also by State against all the 17 accused including Harisingh and Roop Singh against the judgment of acquittal on charge of murder while forming riotous unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, the common object of which was to cause death of Bhagwan Singh and his family members.

( 4 ) A number of persons of both the sides suffered a number of injuries by sharp edged weapons in the incident out of which this trial arose. The complainants of the present case were also tried for causing injuries to some of the accused persons. However, the evidence of that charge and its result do not form part of the present record and have not been referred to.

( 5 ) THE following genealogy will indicate the relationship between some of the parties and will further help in understanding the genesis of the incident :

( 6 ) PARMANAND owned substantial agricultural lands in village Bahpali, Patti Khurai. He sold a part of his land to Roop Singh, Sher Singh and Mulayam Singh and some land still remained with Parmanand. Field No. 71/2 was owned and possessed by Roop Singh etc. , due to transfer by Parmanand to them. Field No. 71/1 belonged to and was in possession of Parmanand till his death. In this field the incident took place. After the death of Parmanand, Gorelal claimed to have succeeded to the land owned and possessed by Parmanand i. e. , Field No. 71/1. However, Roop Singh, Harisingh, Mulayam, Singh, Summer Singh claimed to be the owners in possession of the entire land left by Parmanand and claimed to have continued in possession since t