46 of 1992 charged variously of offences under Sections 302, 302/34, 324, 326 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. as also under Sections 147, 148 and 447 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, however, acquitted accused Nos.
PWs 2 and 3 were the daughters of the deceased while Sikamani number examined was his son.
The occurrence giving rise to this appeal is alleged to have taken place on 20th April, 1991.
It also appears that PW 17, the Sub Inspector found accused No.2 in the same hospital, undergoing treatment.
76/91.
Appellant No.1 did number pay the price of half portion of the land, and companytinued in possession of the entire plot.
There was numberevidence to show that the land measuring 1.83 acres was ever divided by metes and bounds and any portion allotted to the deceased.
So far as the Panchayat is companycerned the case of appellant No.1 was that Jayavelu did number execute the sale deed even though the appellant No.1 had procured number judicial stamp papers etc.
However, Jayavelu deceased attempted to cause damage number only to the lands but also the remaining crops.
The injured were examined at the Government hospital, Vellore by the Medical Officer, PW 12.
On the day of the incident they again attempted to dispossess the appellants by ploughing the land in question upon which the appellants protested.
PW 1 is the husband of PW 2.
Similarly, the objects recovered at the instance of PW 3 had human blood of B group and those recovered at the instance of PW 2 had human blood of O group.
P 2 registering Crime No.
Moreover, the prosecution was guilty of suppressing material facts of the case.
The prosecution examined several witnesses to prove its case and the trial companyrt accepting the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 found the appellants guilty of having caused the death of Jayavelu and having assaulted prosecution witnesses 1, 2 and 3.
There was numberquestion of criminal trespass, since the land in question was in possession of the appellants and in fact it was the prosecution party which had trespassed upon their land.
An order of injunction was obtained, protecting his possession.
Apprehending danger to their life the appellants defended themselves with whatever they had in their hands in exercise of their right of private defence of person and property.
5 and 6 finding numberevidence against them, but found the appellants herein guilty and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment under different Sections of the I.P.C. Appellants No.1 and 2 were companyvicted by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 302 P.C. and appellants No.3 and 4 for the offence under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
He examined the deceased at about 9.15 a.m. and his report is Ex.
When PWs 1, 2, 3 and Sikamani intervened to save the deceased they were also assaulted.
In view of these findings, the High Court acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 447 I.P.C. since the prosecution failed to establish that Jayavelu deceased was in possession of any part of the land purchased by him.
Appellants No.2 and 4 were found guilty of the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment.
The prosecution allegation is that appellants No.1 to 4 had carried spade, crowbar, knife etc.
There are four appellants in this appeal.
The prosecution feigned ignorance about the injuries suffered by the appellants.
Appellant No.2 also got his companyplaint recorded by PW 17 and the same was registered as Crime No.77/91 for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323 I.P.C PW 18, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation of the case and prepared the inquest report.
It is also number disputed that accused No.2 was sent on judicial remand from the hospital itself where he was being treated.
Upon his death, death intimation Ex.
However, at about 6.00 a.m. on 20th April, 1991, the deceased along with PWs.
The High Court at the threshold numbericed the fact that Sikamani who is said to be an eye witness and was also injured in the incident, was number examined as a witness.
The High Court also found that the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries found on appellants No.2 and 4.
The appellants protested against the ploughing of their land by the members of the prosecution party.
P 1 , on the basis of which a formal FIR was drawn up as Ex.
Appellant No.3 had suffered a lacerated injury on the right parietal region and a companytusion on his left leg.
Appellant No.4 had suffered an injury on his right rib back.
On the companytrary, the High Court found that the appellants were in cultivating possession of land as tenants for a long period.
PWs 1, 2 and 3 were also examined by him and their injury reports are Exs.
On 21.4.1991 at about 3.00 a.m. appellants No.3 and 4 and accused No.
Not only this the Sub Inspector , PW 17, who registered the companyplaint made by appellant No.2 on the same day on which the companyplaint of PW 1 was registered, did number even get the companyplaint marked as an Exhibit before the Court of Sessions.
As a result of the assault PWs 1, 2, 3 as well as Jayavelu deceased suffered bleeding injuries and fell down.
It is number disputed that Jayavelu died shortly after his admission.
PW 6, daughter of the deceased, who was a little away from the place of occurrence saw the accused running away with their respective weapons, and also saw the injured lying in the field with bleeding injuries.
P 15 was sent to the police out post and Sub Inspector, PW 17 was accordingly informed who came to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW 1 Ex.
The case of the prosecution is that thereafter appellant Nos.1 to 4 assaulted the deceased with their weapons while accused 5 and 6 gave him blows with their fists.
while accused 5 and 6 came unarmed.
P 11 and later at about 12 numbern PW 9 produced him before the police.
This provoked the prosecution party to assault the appellants to whom injuries were caused on vital parts of their body.
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.
The doctor, PW 13 performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of Jayavelu and the post mortem report is marked as Ex.
On the day prior to the date of occurrence the deceased had attempted to plough the land in question which was successfully prevented by the appellants.
On the previous evening the prosecution party had attempted to dispossess them, but on their protest they went away.
Panchayat had been companyvened which had decided that half of the land should be retained by the deceased purchaser and the other half should be given to appellant No.1 who should pay the price thereof within three months.
She, with the help of PW 4 and one other person, removed the injured to the Government hospital at Vellore.
Accordingly, it companyvicted and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment as earlier numbericed.
Similar is the stand of appellants No.2 to 4.
Appellant No.1 prevented the deceased from ploughing the land even though the deceased offered to pay the price of the land.
It also found that the appellants No.2 to 4 sustained injuries as was evident from the injury reports prepared by PW 12.
It has failed to explain the injuries suffered by three of the appellants on vital parts of their body, and sought to give an impression to the Court that only the appellants had assaulted them, and that they had number caused injuries to anyone.
After this incident the deceased went away.
After retreating on the first day on protest being raised by the appellants, the deceased again attempted to take possession on the morning of 20th April, 1991.
But stray or even intermittent acts of trespass do number give such a right against the true owner.
5 and 6 since acquitted were arrested and it is stated that recoveries were made on the basis of the voluntary statements made by appellant No.3 and appellant No.4.
It appears that the objects recovered at the instance of PW 1 and Sikamani were stained with human blood of O group.
On the evening of 19th April, 1991, the deceased attempted to plough the said plot which was in possession of appellant No.1, but the appellant No.1 protested, which companypelled the deceased to stop ploughing that land.
P.C. stated that the land in dispute had been in occupation and enjoyment of his family for the last 50 years.
When Sikamani was ploughing the land, PW 1 stood on the ridge and PWs 2 and 3 were manuring the land.
On a companysideration of the evidence on record the High Court has recorded a categorical finding that the accused were trying to defend possession of their property when the occurrence took place.
At the trial, appellant No.1 in his examination under Section 313 Cr.
The documents produced by the appellants established beyond doubt that till the year 1985 they were certainly in possession of the land in question as cultivating tenants.
The appellants were therefore in possession of the entire plot of land measuring 1.83 acres.
P 22, P 17 and P 19 respectively.
Similarly, appellant No.2 had suffered a lacerated injury on the left frontal region.
In the companyrse of the investigation the objects recovered on the basis of the statements made by the accused as well as the prosecution witnesses were sent for chemical examination.
He went to the land in question along with PWs 1 to 3 and started agricultural operations.
PW 3 was assaulted by appellants 1, 2 and 3 while PW 1 was assaulted by all the appellants and accused 5 and 6 since acquitted.
1, 2, 3 and Sikamani again went to plough the land and companymenced agricultural operations.
Apart from the appellants herein, two others namely accused Nos.5 and 6 were put up for trial before the Court of Sessions in Sessions Case No.
The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Jayavelu purchased 1.83 acres of land in Survey No.56/1 in Renukapuram from Murugesa Mudaliar and Savithri.
On companying to know of this the appellants and accused 5 and 6 since acquitted , came and protested against the ploughing of the land which was in possession of the appellants.
Regarding the charge under Section 302 and 302/34 I.P.C, the High Court held that appellant No.1 was in possession of the entire extent of land purchased by Jayavelu from Murugesa Mudaliar and Savithri.
Appellants 1 and 3 were found guilty of the offences under Sections 324 and 326 I.P.C and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and 5 years respectively under the aforesaid sections.
On companying to know that the deceased had purchased the land in question he had filed a Civil Suit being OS No.968/84 before the Court of Munsif at Vellore against deceased.
It was in this background that the occurrence took place in which members of both prosecution and the defence party, were injured.
The decision of the Panchayat was number acted upon by appellant No.1 and the evidence on record disclosed that both parties blamed each other for number executing the sale deed.
All the appellants were also found guilty of the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. for which they were sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment.
Appellant No.1, Subramani is the father of the remaining appellants namely, Venkatesan appellant No.2 , Ganesan appellant No.3 and Govindaraj appellant No.4 .
Sikamani was assaulted by appellant No.1 and accused Nos.
5 and PW 2 was similarly assaulted by appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 while appellants No.5 and 6 gave her fist blows.
They have impugned the judgment and order of the High Court whereby while setting aside their companyviction under Sections 302 and 302/34 P.C., the High Court found them guilty of having exceeded their right of self defence and found them guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 I.P.C. The High Court also found the appellants guilty variously of the offences under Section 324 and Section 326 I.P.C. However, the High Court acquitted them of the charge under Section 447 I.P.C. on a finding that the land in question was in their cultivating possession as tenants and therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case they companyld number be held guilty of the offence of criminal trespass.
However, appellant No.1 herein who was the cultivating tenant of the aforesaid land was obstructing delivery of possession of the land to the deceased who had purchased this land.
602 of 1992.
Upon protest by him Jayavelu deceased assaulted appellants No.2 to 4.
P. Singh, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 17.04.2001 in Criminal Appeal No.
It is the case of the prosecution that appellant No.1 on 25.4.1991 at about 10.00 a.m. made an extra judicial companyfession before PW 9, Ex.
In fact the manner of occurrence disclosed by the prosecution was a distorted version calculated to support the fake case of the prosecution.
