ANSARAM RAMBHAU YELVE AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 411 · Decided: 12-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ANSARAM RAMBHAU YEL VE AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
FEBRUARY 12, 1996 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
B 
Oiminal Law : 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 97 and 103. 
Right of private defence-Land in dispute-Deceased-Exclusive owner C 
thereof-Appellants-Had no right, title, interest or possession therein-At-
tached the deceased without any provocatiorr-Injuries sustained by accused, 
minor and superfluous-Held: in the circumstances finding of the High Court 
that the appellants were the aggressos and, therefore, they had also no right 
of private defence of person was unexceptionable. 
D 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302/149, 324/14 and 325/149-
Common object-Land in dispute-Deceased-Exclusive owner thereof-Ap-
pellants attacked the deceased with axes and lathies--Held: the circumstances 
leading to the incident, the manner in which it took place, the weapons used 
and the nature and number of injuries inflicted showed that the appellants E 
had the common object of committing murderous assault. 
Criminal Trial : 
Eye witnesses-Presence of-Corroborated by their being named in 
counter case-Injuries sustained by them-Supported probative value of their 
evidence-Omissions-In police statements-Held : not material for they 
related to actual portions of the body where the accused inflicted the blows 
and not their participation in the assault itself. 
F 
The appellants were convicted under Sections 302, 324 and 325 read G 
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to different 
terms of imprisonment, including life and fine. 
According to the prosecution, the appellants accused were real 
brothers who owned a plot in the village. The adjoining land was owned by 
the deceased, to the immediate west of which were strips of land owned by H 
411 
/ 
~ 
/' 
\ 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
P.W.1. In between these lands ran a small Nala, on the southern bank of 
which there was a thick cactus growth. Even though the land under the . 
Nala was exclusively owned and possessed by the deceased, the appellants-
.accused were disputing such a claim and they uprooted the cactus plants 
and replanted them on the southern bank of the Nala, apparently for 
B extending the boundary of their land. 
On the fateful day, when the deceased were engaged in removal of 
the plants, the appellants came there variously armed. Reaching there they 
surrounded the deceased and started beating them with their respective 
weapons. They.raised alarms and hearing the same P.W.1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 
C 8 who were present in their respective lands nearby rushed to the scene. 
D 
E 
P.W.2 and·P.W.8 were also beaten up by the appellants. The deceased who 
had in the meantime fallen down were then removed by the appellants to 
the common bandh nearby where they were further assaulted resulting in 
their instant death. A First Information Report was lodged on the basis of 
information about the incident given by P.W.1. 
On the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, 
the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against 
the appellants - accused were fully established. This finding was upheld by 
the High Court. 
' 
In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appellants it was 
contended that there were quite a few omissions in the police statements 
of the eye witnesses as regards the individual role played by the appellants 
in the assault; that all of them could not be held liable under Section 302 
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as some had only used 
F 
sticks; and that they were entitled to right of private defence of prope~. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the High Court 
was right in convicting the appellants; and that since the land under the 
Nala belonged to the accused in which they had no right, title or interest, 
G they were not entitled to any right of private defence of property. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1.The deceased were the owners and in possession of the 
land under Nala and that the appellants had no right, title, interest or 
H possession therein it must be held that the appellants were not .entitled to 
AR. YELVEv. STATE 
413 
any right of private defence of property. The claim of P.W. 1 to 3 and P.W. A 
11 that they had witnesses the incident stands corroborated by the fact 
that they were named as the rioters in the counter case. The fact that 
P.W.11 and P.W.2 sustai

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.