The Sub Inspector of Police also found pellets at the place of occurrence which companyfirms the fact that the companyplainant must have fired from his gun.
The defence of the appellants was that they had redeemed the mortgage debt and thereafter the mortgagee had himself delivered possession of the land to the appellants some time in 1968, and since then the appellants were in peaceful possession of the land and had grown wheat crop therein.
According to the defence, the prosecution party was also armed with gun, axe, kirpans and other deadly weapons and the accused tried to resist their being dispossessed and assaulted the prosecution party purely in the exercise of their right of private defence of person and property.
on his body with kirpans, while Bakshish Singh gave spear blows in the thigh and abdomen of Sulakhan Singh The appellants Balkar Singh, Puran Singh and Piara Singh inflicted with their respective weapons blows on Baj Singh, Soban Singh P. W. 9 who tried to rescue his brother was also assaulted by Balkar Singh, Bohar Singh and Bakshish Singh.
Puran Singh and Piara Singh are also alleged to have assaulted Sohan Singh with their weapons.
The High Court has rightly pointed out that if the appellants party had taken possession as far back as in 1967 there would be numberoccasion for them to file a civil suit for possession on October 4, 1967 against the mortgagee, Dilbagh Singh and others That on October 27, 1968 the appellants undoubtedly entered the field and took forcible possession of the land from the companyplainants who were unable to resist the entry of the accused as a result of which Dilbagh Singh filed a companyplaint on October 30, 1968.
A casual act of possession would number have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner.
20,000 and undertook to liquidate the mortgage debt.
The High Court has also pointed out that the companyplainant Dilbagh Singh was prosecuted for having been in possession of an unlicensed gun and has since been absconding.
Thereafter the accused Puran Singh and Piara Singh surrounded Sulakhan Singh and inflicted various injuries.
Sohan Singh does number say a word that they had sowed or were sowing wheat crop at the time of occurrence in this field.
The three injured persons were removed to the civil hospital at Hoshiarpur but Sulakhan Singh succumbed to his injuries on the way while Baj Singh and Sohan Singh were admitted in the hospital.
The victims then fell down on the ground and then the accused made good their escape.
On July 28, 1966 the appellants Puran Singh and Piara Singh and one Smt.
This Doctor also says that after examining the injuries of Mohan Singh he was of the opinion that they were also gun shot injuries.
The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the rightful owner must be a settled possession extending over a sufficiently long period and acquiesced in by the true owner.
Emboldened by this success in a civil suit, it appears that the companyplainant Dilbagh Singh along with Sohan Singh Bachan Singh, Sulakhan Singh, Baj Singh and others went to the field in question and started ploughing it and sowing Sarson.
A companyplaint was filed by Dilbagh Singh on October 30, 1968 against the accused and Ajmer Singh Sub Inspector of Police alleging that the accused had entered the land and demolished the kothas belonging to the companyp lainant with the active aid of the police.
It is number necessary for us to say anything regarding the allegation about demo lishing of the Kothas The companyplainant knew fully well that he had been dispossessed by the appellants at least a month before the occurrence and that the appellants bad sown wheat crop and in spite of his knowledge he deliberately went there with the avowed object of taking forcible possession from the appellants That on the date of occurrence the prosecution party undoubtedly went to the field armed with the gun and axe.
The F.I.R. was lodged on November 27, 1968 by Baj Singh one of the injured persons on the basis of which the present case started and after usual investigation a charge sheet was submitted against the accused which resulted in their ultimate companyviction and sentences as mentioned above.
Having, however, failed to take possession of the mortgage property after having redeemed the mortgage, the purchasers of the equity of redemption, namely, the party of the appellants filed a suit for possession against Dilbagh Singh in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Hoshiarpur on October 4, 1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 10th February, 1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Chandra daughter of the appellant Bakshish Singh purchased the equity of redemption in the said land from Hari Singh for a sum of Rs.
Mohan Singh one of the persons on the side of the accused had received a gun shot injury which has been proved by the Injury Report Ext P.D. which shows that Mohan Singh received as many as four injuries one of them under the right eye.
Witness thereupon took the kulhari from the house of Dilbagh Singh and proceeded to the place of occurrence with the deceased persons.
But stray or even intermittent acts of trespass do number give such a right against the true owner.
K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala and V. J. Francis, for the appellants.
The learned Sessions Judge who tried the present case has also companyvicted one Pargat Singh the brother of Baksbish Singh and son of Charan Singh but this ,accused has been acquitted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana hereinafter referred to as the High Court.
While the companyplaint was being enquired into, the suit filed by Puran Singh and others was dismissed on November 21, 1968 on the ground that the suit was number maintainable and the plaint was returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper authorities, namely, Revenue Courts.
According to the fence two persons on their side were injured one of them Mohan Singh had received gun shot injury, whereas Bohar Singh had also received gun shot injuries.
One of the dates fixed in this suit was October 27, 1968 when, according to the prosecution, Puran Singh, Piara Singh, Bakshish Singh, Pargat Singh and Chandra Singh entered the land in dispute and demolished the kothas of the companyplainant.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The story opens with a usufructuary mortgage which was executed by Hari Singh the original owner in respect of 29 Kanals 14 Murlas of land in favour of the appellants Puran Singh and Piara Singh and one Nishan Singh for a sum of Rs.
266 of 1971.
The High Court has also found that the probabilities are that the prosecution party were also armed with gun and Gandasis.
The High Court, has, however, affirmed the companyviction and sentences of the five appellants and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants before it hence this appeal to this Court by special leave.
1034 of 1969.
Similarly the accused Behar Singh who was examined by P.W. 5 Dr. Pritpal Singh, had two injuries which according to the Doctor were gun shot injuries having been caused by a gun.
Soon thereafter the mortgagees sold their montage rights to Makhan Singh father of Dilbagh Singh of the prosecution party.
3000/ .
According to the defence the mortgage debt was actually discharged on May 30, 1967 and a few months later mutation was sanctioned in favour of the accused on July 13, 1967.
In the visual site plan, Exhibit PZ, which, according to A.S.I. Kartar Singh, was prepared by him on November 27, 1968, it is mentioned that the field was under wheat cultivation.
Dilbagh Singh being dissatisfied with his having to part with the possession of the property filed a false companyplaint against the appellants and thereafter tried to take forcible possession of the land from the appellants with the show of force.
