326/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment.
Soon after the occurrence Rameshwar Pathak, a police officer, who happened to be present at the spot recorded the statement of P.W. 1 Ram Khelawan which was treated as the F.I.R. and after companyducting the usual investigation submitted a chargesheet against all the accused persons who were put on trial before the Sessions Judge, Barabanki.
Three appellants Ram Ratan, Ram Sajiwan and Ram Samujh were further companyvicted under s. 447 I.P.C. to three months rigorous imprisonment and under ss.
lacerated wounds in the region of the ear, one punctured wound in the left forearm and one companytusion.
853, 854, 864, 823 and 887.
324/34 I.P.C. to two years rigorous imprison ment under each of the two companynts.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 12 4 1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No 1909/68 .
justified in causing the death of the deceased, particularly in view of the serious injuries received by three of the party of the accused.
The Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Din Bandhu and companyvicted the appellant Ram Sajiwan under s. 302 I.P.C. Ram Ratan and Ram Samujh were companyvicted under ss.
The accused persons wanted t0 assert their lawful right over the Chak Road and it was the prosecution party which was the aggressor and started assaulting the accused as a result of which three persons on the side of the accused received serious injuries.
The defence of the accused was that shortly before the occurrence proceedings for companysolidation of holdings had taken place in the village as a result of which the Revenue authorities provided a Chak Road which passed through plot Nos.
The accused were, therefore, acting in the exercise of their right of private defence of person and property and were.
Reliance was placed, particularly on the Injury Reports of Ram Samujh, Harnam and Ram Ratan.
The accused persons filed an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad which was also dismissed and thereafter they obtained spe cial leave of this Court and hence this appeal before us.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
323/34 P.C. to six months rigorous imprisonment and ordered that all the sentences shall run companycurrently.
It appears that Ram Samujh received two injuries one being a lacerated wound 3 cm X 3/4 cm X 1 cm deep on the posterior part of head and a companytusion on the right side of the head, while Harnam had four companytusions and Ram Ratan had two.
Both the companyrts below have companye to a companycurrent finding of fact that the occurrence took place as alleged by the prosecution and that the accused persons were the aggressors and had opened the assault on the deceased.
In the first place, he submitted that the finding of the High Court impliedly shows that the accused were trying to, assert their lawful right over the Chak Road which was wrongfully occupied by the companyplainant and was in possession of the villagers.
P. Uniyal and O.P. Rana, for the respondent, L. Kohli, for the Intervener.
282 of 1971.
This is what appears to have happened in this appeal by special leave in which the appellants appear to have got themselves involved in an armed companyflict with the prosecution party resulting in the death of the deceased, injuries to some of the prosecu tion witnesses and injuries to three of the accused them selves.
The other members of the companyplainants party, namely, Ram Khela wan Manohar Sarabjit, Mewa Lal and Satrohan were also assaulted by Ram Ratan and his party.
This Chak Road was meant to boa public road to enable the.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. It is a peculiar feature of our criminal law that where a trespasser has succeeded in taking recent wrongful possession of the property vested in the public for companymon enjoyment, the members of the village or the real owner are number entitled in law to throw out the trespasser but have to take recourse to the legal remedies available, and if any member of the public tries to secure public property from the possession of the trespasser he is numbermal ly visited with the onerous penalty of law.
The accused, there fore, assaulted the deceased in self defence.
residents of the village to pass through this road with their cattle.
K. Mehta, for the appellants.
The prosecution case in short is that on July 18, 1966, at about 7 30 to 8 00 in the morning when Ram Khelawan and his companypanions were removing weeds from the paddy crop sown by them in the field which included a portion of the Chak Road which had recently been encroached by the companyplainants party and amalgamated with their fields, Ram Ratan and Ram Samujh armed with lathis and Din Bandhu and Ram Sajiwan carrying a ballam and Biroo respectively entered the field of Ram Khelawan with their bullocks and insited on passing through the field along with their bullocks, which according to them was a public road.
The companyplainants protested against the highhanded action of the party of the accused on which Ram Ratan exhorted his companypanions to assault the deceased Murli as a companysequence of which Ram Sajiwan as saulted Murli in the abdomen with his Biroo as a result of which MurIi sustained serious injuries and fell down in the field and ultimately succumbed to the injuries.
The learned companynsel for the appellants submitted two points before us.
Even other wise, the accused pleaded innocence.
The accused, therefore, had every right to throw out the companyplainants party who were trespassers by force.
This road happened to be adjacent to the field of Ram Khelawan P.W. 1 and he took undue advantage of the proximity of the road and encroached upon the same and amalgamated it with his cultiv able field.
