Back
In Each Person Responsible For Own Act: Acquits Four Women
In a significant ruling on criminal liability during group clashes, the has held that when evidence fails to establish which party was the , the incident is deemed a "" where each individual is accountable solely for their own acts. Applying this principle, Justice Sanjiv Kumar four women who were convicted in a 1984 land dispute, while upholding the conviction of two men—all of whom were granted the .
The judgment, delivered on , partially allowed a criminal appeal that had been pending since , bringing a four-decade legal saga to a close. Six of the original twelve appellants had died during the pendency of the appeal, leaving only six survivors to face the court's scrutiny.
The 1984 Clash: A Harvest Turns Violent
The case traces back to , in Village Basatguwa, Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh. A disputed 6.45-acre parcel of land at Nazarbagh Kunwa became the flashpoint when members of one faction began harvesting a standing maize crop. The land had been the subject of protracted litigation, with a registered executed in in favor of the informant's side, followed by objections, , and a before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Taalbehat.
According to the lodged by Mannu Lal at 5:35 PM on the day of the incident, when he and his brothers objected to the harvesting, the accused party launched an assault with lathis and sickles. The informant's side claimed to have acted in , snatching weapons from the attackers. Both sides sustained injuries in the melee.
Critically, the clash also resulted in the deaths of two persons from the accused party—Zalim and Bhagirath—leading to a under against fifteen individuals from the informant's faction.
The Trial Court Conviction and the High Court Appeal
In , the trial court presided over by Sri S.S. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (), Lalitpur, convicted all twelve accused under Sections 147 (), 323/149 ( by ), and 324/149 ( by dangerous weapons) of the IPC. Instead of imposing immediate imprisonment, the trial court released them on for good conduct for one year under .
The convicted persons immediately appealed to the High Court, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove its case and that the trial court had erred in rejecting their plea of .
The Core Legal Puzzle: Who Struck First?
Justice Sanjiv Kumar identified the central question as determining which party was the . The prosecution's case rested on the claim that the accused unlawfully harvested the crop and initiated violence when confronted. The defence countered that the informant's side was the and that any injuries caused were in legitimate .
However, the High Court found the evidence on this crucial point to be inconclusive. The prosecution had not definitively established that the disputed land or the standing crop belonged to the informant's side, thereby negating any claim of right to of property. On the question of who started the physical assault, the oral testimony was contradictory, with each side blaming the other.
"When
Is Unclear, It Is a
"
Faced with this evidentiary impasse, the Court articulated the governing legal principle with clarity. Justice Sanjiv Kumar observed:
"So, when it is not clear from evidence which party was the
, then it would be deemed that it was a
. In case of
each person/ party is responsible for its act."
This doctrine shifts the focus from to . In a scenario, the prosecution must prove specific overt acts attributable to each accused person rather than relying on the concept of shared under .
Discrepancies That Secured Acquittals
Applying this standard, the Court scrutinized the testimony of four key prosecution witnesses—P.W.1 Mannu Lal, P.W.2 Lakkhi (an injured witness), P.W.3 Meghraj, and P.W.7 Sujan—regarding the role of the four surviving female appellants: Smt. Badi Bahu alias Kanchan Devi, Smt. Sanjhali Bahu wife of Bhajan Lal, Smt. Manjhli Bahu wife of Baijnath, and Smt. Manjhali Bahu wife of Zalim.
The evidence revealed a critical gap. While the witnesses placed these women at the scene, the prosecution's own injured witness, P.W.2 Lakkhi, stated that the women
"did not pick up the lathi"
and that he
"did not see that they committed any maarpeet."
P.W.7 Sujan similarly testified that he
"did not see them causing any assault."
The Court noted with emphasis:
"None of the women assaulted to anyone, and it was both the parties who were assaulting each other. Thus, there is no clear evidence that [the women] participated in the crime. There is also no evidence that they shared any
with other co-accused. Therefore, they deserve to get the
."
Consequently, the conviction and sentence against all four women were set aside, and they were of all charges.
Two Men's Convictions Upheld
The outcome was different for the two surviving male appellants—Bhajan Lal and Ramanand. The Court found "specific evidence" demonstrating their active participation in the assault. Unlike the female co-accused, the testimony against them was consistent and reliably established their role in causing injuries to the informant's party. Their convictions under Sections 147, 323/149, and 324/149 IPC were affirmed.
However, maintaining parity with the trial court's original approach, the High Court directed both men to appear before the trial court within one month and execute bonds for maintaining good behaviour, extending them the under for a period of one year.
Implications of the Ruling
The judgment reinforces a nuanced principle in criminal jurisprudence concerning group violence: where the prosecution cannot disentangle the sequence of aggression, courts will not presume collective guilt. Instead, each accused person's liability must be individually established through credible evidence of their specific acts. The ruling also underscores the importance of consistent witness testimony—particularly from injured witnesses whose credibility is typically high—in securing convictions.
For the four women who carried the stigma of conviction for nearly four decades, the High Court's decision brings final reprieve. The two men, though their convictions stand, will not serve custodial sentences, closing a chapter that began with a harvest-day confrontation in 1984.
