It came to the companyclusion that numberspecific injury companyld be attributed to any particular accused.
The trial companyrt then companysidered the charge under Section 148 IPC.
It did number therefore accept the evidence of the witnesses with regard to the causing of specific injuries by any particular accused.
2, 9 and 12 had suffered several injuries, though simple in nature, but caused by a sharp cutting weapon and the prosecution had number offered any explanation as to how those injuries were caused.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the defence case was that the land in dispute originally belonged to Suribabu which was purchased by A 13 who later sold it to A 4.
A 1 to A 4, A 6 and A 8 assaulted PW 4 with sticks.
At about 2.00 p.m. the injured were taken to the Kothakota Police Station from where they were taken to the Government hospital for treatment.
The case of the prosecution is that even the lands sold to A 13 were in the cultivating possession of the deceased as a lessee despite the sale of the land in favour of A 13.
1 to 6 and seized their blood stained clothes.
It companycluded that when so many persons surrounded the deceased and assaulted him, it would be futile to companytend that any of the witnesses companyld have numbericed which specific injury was caused by which particular accused.
4 and C were stab injuries on the right and left forearm.
The body of deceased, Gangaraju, was sent to the Government hospital Narsipatnam for post mortem examination which was companyducted by PW 12.
A 1 and A 4 though companyvicted by the High Court have number preferred appeals to this Court and only the remaining nine accused have preferred this appeal.
The companyrt accordingly held that the charge under Section 447 was number proved and the accused persons were entitled to be acquitted under that charge.
It, however, went on to hold that while exercising their right of private defence of property they exceeded their right by causing the death of the deceased by assaulting him.
The said proceeding resulted in favour of A 13 and an order of eviction was passed against the deceased.
3 of 1985.
The case of the prosecution is that at about 11.30 a.m. on 23rd July, 1992 an incident took place in village Ponnavolu in which deceased Lanka Gangaraju lost his life and PWs.
On the basis of the evidence on record it came to the companyclusion that A 1 to A 10 and A 12 were the persons whose presence was established and who had taken part in the assault on the prosecution party.
The accused thereafter came to the hut of the deceased near the land on which chilli crop had been grown.
PW 14, the Head Constable, who was then Incharge of the Police Station, recorded the statements of PW 1 in the hospital and on the basis of report registered Crime No.
1 to 6 received injuries.
The injured witnesses were also examined by PW 11 at Government dispensary, Kothakota, The same doctor also examined the injuries of A 1, A 9 and A 12.
The judgment and order passed by the High Court has been challenged by the appellants herein.
A 1 to A 10 and A 12 were companyvicted by the trial companyrt under different sections of the IPC, as numbericed earlier.
The companyrt referred to the proceeding recorded by the Amin showing actual delivery of possession in the said proceeding.
In this view of the matter, the High Court upheld the companyviction of the appellants under Section 304 Part I IPC, but in the facts of the case, reduced the sentence under Section 304 Part I IPC from seven years rigorous imprisonment to three years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the sentence of fine and sentence in default of payment of fine.
The remaining accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
When PW 3, wife of PW 1 attempted to save her husband, A 2, A 3, A 7 and A 12 beat her with sticks while A 5 kicked her on her abdomen.
The medical evidence disclosed that injuries 4 and 6 were caused by a sharp cutting weapon and the injuries on the parietal region and other parts of the head were only lacerated injuries which companyld number be caused by a sharp cutting weapon.
A 13 died during the pendency of the trial and therefore the trial as against him abated.
He also recorded the statements of the injured accused namely A 1, A 9 and A 12.
After delivery of possession, A 13 came in actual possession of the lands in question which remained under his occupation thereafter.
The deceased had raised chilli crop in one portion of that land while other crops had been raised in the remaining portion of the land in dispute.
One may infer from the finding of the trial companyrt that in its opinion the assembly had number become unlawful as long as they did number use force to defend the possession of A 13, but once they started using force and indulged in assault on the members of the prosecution party, the assembly became unlawful.
In the incident, PWs.
3 of 1985.
There was numberfracture of the skull though there were 4 lacerations on the skull region, as numbericed in the post mortem report.
As many as 18 charges were framed against the 21 accused persons under Sections 148, 447, 302, 302 r w 149, 307, 307 r w 149, 324 and 427 IPC.
Thus, it companyld number be said that the members of the defence party including A 13 companymitted trespass punishable under Section 447 IPC since the land in question was in their actual possession.
The said proceeding resulted in an order of eviction against the deceased.
Thus, 11 persons were companyvicted by the trial companyrt, who preferred an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed subject to modification of sentence under Section 304 Part I IPC which was reduced by the High Court from seven years rigorous imprisonment to three years rigorous imprisonment.
The case of the defence further is that apprehending disturbance at the hands of the deceased a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.
Thereafter, A 2, A 3, A 7 and A 12 assaulted the deceased on his hands, legs and other parts of the body with sticks.
P.C., the High Court observed that even though such an order was obtained only a day before the occurrence, that did number show that the land was under the cultivation of either A 13, A 1 or A 4.
A 1 and A 4 number appellants herein questioned the deceased alleging that they had purchased the land from A 13 and they would take possession of the land by use of force.
Apart from these two injuries, the other injuries were in the nature of abrasions or lacerations which companyld be caused by a hard blunt substance.
Yet the eye witnesses had attributed the head injuries to accused 1 and 4, who are said to have been armed with knives such as M.O. 3.
Thereafter, A 2, A 4, A 7 and A 12 assaulted him with sticks.
After the purchase, he filed an eviction case against the deceased under the Andhra Tenancy Act being A.T.C. No.
The deceased was in cultivating possession of the said land and therefore A 13 initiated a proceeding for his eviction from the land in question before the Court of Principal District Munsif being A.T.C. No.
Ultimately, the accused were arrested and put up for trial before the III Additional District Sessions Judge, Visakhapatman in Sessions Case No.
PW 15, the Inspector of Police, Itchapuram, took over investigation of the case and proceeded to the hospital where he examined PWs.
12 was somewhat doubtful.
It found that the injuries suffered on the head were number caused by a sharp cutting weapon while injuries 4 and 6 were stab wounds caused on the right and left fore arm of the deceased which companyld have been caused by sharp cutting weapon.
As many as 21 persons were put up for trial before the III Additional District Sessions Judge.
Soon thereafter, the accused numbering about 20 came there with a ram and packets of arrack.
If numberhing further happened, one can find justification for the finding of the High Court that A 13 was only the legal owner of the property in question, though number in actual possession thereof, and possession was still with the deceased.
P.C. proceeding against the deceased and members of his party.
On returning to the Police Station, he found that some members of the defence party had also companye to the Police Station and of them A 1, A 9 and A 12 were injured.
The trial companyrt, on perusal of the evidence on record, came to the companyclusion that apart from injuries 4 and 6, which companyld have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon, the other injuries were only lacerated injuries which companyld number have been caused by a knife or any other sharp edged weapon, and apparently were, caused by sticks.
1 to 6.
They were drunk and also armed with knives and sticks.
The case of the prosecution is that at about 11.00 a.m. on 23rd July, 1992 the deceased along with his son in law, PW 1, his grand son, PW 2, and his daughter, PW 3 was carrying out the weeding operations on the portion of the land where chilli crop had been raised.
The trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that the members of the defence party though they had a right of private defence of property, had exceeded that right by causing injuries which ultimately resulted in the death of one of the members of the prosecution party.
It then observed that though at the time of companying to the field they did number have any mens rea to companymit on offence, their subsequent acts clearly brought them under the Explanation to Section 141 IPC, meaning thereby, though the assembly was number unlawful at its inception, it subsequently became an unlawful assembly.
A 1 and A 4, who were armed with knives, caused injuries to the deceased on his head as a result of which he fell down.
Two of the injuries, namely, injury Nos.
1 to 6 were injured.
Moreover, the medical evidence on record was to the effect that the deceased died number on account of arty particular injury, but on account of the cumulative effect of all injuries.
When A 13 and others protested against the high handedness of the deceased, they were assaulted by the members of the prosecution party with sharp cutting weapons as a result of which A1, A 9 and A 12 suffered injuries.
The participation of accused No.
They have challenged their companyvictions under Sections 304 Part I, 324 and 148 IPC.
Considering the question, as to which of the accused had caused which particular injury, after going through the evidence of eye witnesses, it came to the companyclusion that though their evidence was number companysistent, it certainly revealed that accused 1 to 4 and 7 bad participated in causing injuries to the deceased.
Rut the facts of this case disclose that when they sought to exercise their right of private defence of property, they were attacked by the members of the prosecution party and three of them suffered incised wounds.
Adjacent to the lands purchased by the deceased, Suribabu owned 2.50 acres of land which he had sold to A 13.
Accused A 11 and A 14 to A 21 were acquitted of the charges leveled against them.
The post mortem report was marked as Ex.
These injuries have number been explained by the prosecution, which further probabilises the case of the defence that the prosecution party was the aggressor.
As regards the order passed under Section 144 Cr.
PW 1 attempted to run away from the place of occurrence but A 1 chased him and assaulted him with a knife on his hands as a result of which he fell down.
The finding recorded by the trial judge is number very clear but on a fair reading of the judgment, it appears that in his view, the companymon object of the assembly to begin with was to defend the possession of A 13, which was number unlawful, but when they used their weapons and assaulted the members of the prosecution party resulting in the death of one person, the assembly which was at its inception lawful had become unlawful because their companymon object then was one of excluding the intervention of Gangaraju and if necessary by use of force.
Two of the injuries on the right and left fore arm were caused by sharp cutting weapon while the lacerated injuries companyld have been caused by sticks.
The High Court after numbericing the evidence on record and the plea of accused and the findings recorded by the trial companyrt held that though the land in question had been purchased by A 13, the same was under the cultivation of the deceased.
It numbericed the submission urged on behalf of the accused that even accused Nos.
It, therefore, held that the case set up by the prosecution party that it was in possession of the land in question was doubtful, while on the other hand, there was positive evidence with regard to possession of A 13 over the disputed property.
He took further steps in the companyrse of investigation.
Therefore, the aggression companymitted by him and his party members was number justified.
3 of 1992 against the deceased and members of his party.
However, since A 1 and A 4 were armed with knives and A 2, A 3, A 5, A 6, A 7, A 8, A 9, A 10 and A 12 were armed with sticks which are weapons of offence and which were used in the companyrse of the incident resulting in the death of Gangaraju, these accused persons were guilty of an offence under Section 148 IPC.
The trial companyrt companysidering the charge under Section 447 IPC held that A 13 had purchased the disputed land from Suribabu.
Pending the trial, accused No.
If the defence party was in possession of the land in question, there was really numberreason for it to companymit the aggression, and if at all it was the prosecution party which companyld have attempted to dispossess the appellants herein by use of force.
A 13 pursued the matter further in execution and on 13th May, 1992 actual delivery of possession was effected by the Amin in E.P. No, 37 of 1992.
There was pending litigation between the parties relating to the purchase of the land by A 13.
As earlier numbericed, the trial companyrt acquitted 9 of the accused persons of all the charges leveled against them.
13 died and therefore the trial as against him abated.
A 1 and A 4 have number preferred appeals before this Court.
5 and 6 had also companye to companylect grass.
25 of 1993.
The appellants herein as well as A 1 and A 4 preferred an appeal before the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad being Criminal Appeal No.
21 of 1992 under Sections 147, 148, 324 r w Section 149 IPC.
They were taken by him to the hospital and on the basis of the statement of A 1 he registered Crime No.
20 of 1992 under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 326 and 324 r w Section 149 IPC.
650 of 1995.
In this way, the accused claimed right of private defence of property as well as right of private defence of person.
Thereafter, A 13 executed the order in E.P. No.
They kept the ram in the shed of A 13 which was at a distance of about 100 yards away from their field.
25 of 1993.
The appellants herein were accused Nos.
Considering the charge under Section 302 IPC, framed against Accused 1 to 4, 7 and 12, and under Section 302 read with Section 149 as against the other accused, the trial companyrt companysidered the injuries suffered by the deceased.
The prosecution party was the aggressor, and when the members of the defence party sought to exercise their right of private defence of property, they were attacked by them as a result of which they were companypelled to defend themselves.
On 18th June, 1992 an order was passed in the 144 Cr.
The defence case is that on the date of occurrence the deceased attempted to forcibly occupy the land of which possession had been delivered to A 13 through process of companyrt.
So far as injuries on A 2, A 9 and A 12 are companycerned, the doctor, PW 11, found that A 2 had injury on the thigh over lateral aspect above the knee joint and A 9 had also suffered 2 incised injuries.
It was, in these circumstances, that the occurrence took place.
Apart from the 4 injuries on the skull region, the remaining 8 injuries were on number vital parts of the body, primarily on the limbs.
The accused numbering 21 had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the deceased and other members of the prosecution party, namely, PWs.
It is number the case of the prosecution that any one of the injuries was sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
The post mortem report discloses that deceased, Gangaraju, had suffered 12 injuries, which in the opinion of the doctor were cumulatively sufficient to cause death in ordinary companyrse of nature.
P.C. was initiated being M.C. No.
It was further held that these accused persons did number intend to cause the death of Gangaraju and their only object to begin with was to preserve possession of the property which was under the companytrol of A 13.
On this reasoning, the trial companyrt found the aforesaid accused persons guilty of the offence under Section 148 IPC.
A 1 and A 4, who were appellants before the High Court, have number preferred appeals before this Court, as earlier numbericed.
P. Singh, J. In this appeal by special leave, the appellants have impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 28th September, 2001 in Criminal Appeal No.
650 of 1995.
