ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 947 · Decided: 05-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
MAY 5, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s.302-Deceased murdered while he was ploughing land in dispute-
Accused raising plea of right of private defence to the land property-Held: C 
Not acceptable as the burden to prove that accused were in possession of land 
and deceased trespassed on to it, was on accused which they failed to discharge. 
Criminal trial: 
Prosecution witness related to both accused and deceased-Not shown D 
to be otherwise inimically disposed toward accused-His evidence also 
corroborated by medical evidence-Held: Conviction based on his evidence 
cannot be said to be erroneous-Evidence. 
According to prosecution, appellants-accused had been causing E 
disturbance in the possession of the land belonging to the deceased. On 
the fateful day, deceased went to the disputed land and began to plough 
the land to which appellants objected and threatened him. Deceased 
informed PW-I and PW-2 about the threats received and they suggested 
to refer the matter to Panchayat. Deceased did not accept the suggestion 
and instead requested them to accompany him to the disputed land. When F 
they entered the land and the deceased started ploughing, the appellants 
came equipped with weapons and attacked the deceased. He succumbed 
to injuries. 
\ 
PW-I and 2 ran from the spot. The police station was 8 Kms. away. 
PW-I walked for 3 hours to reach the police station and lodged FIR which G 
was recorded by PW-10, the head constable. 
Sessions Judge upon relying on evidence of eye-witnesses (PW-1 and 
2) ordered conviction. High Court upheld the same. 
947 
H 
948 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the prosecution 
failed to prove that the disputed land belonged to the deceased; that 
another report was lodged prior to the lodging of FIR by PW-I and 
General diary was not produced by prosecution hence an adverse inference 
ought to have been drawn by Courts below and that High Court 
committed a serious error in placing reliance upon evidence of PW-I on 
B the premise that he was a disinterested witness and that as the title of land 
was disputed, the courts below ought to have considered the question as 
to whether in a situation of this nature, appellants could have exercised 
their right of private defence in regard to the property. 
• 
C 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Both the parties were related to each other, the decea~ed 
being a co-parcener of the appellants and the parties had been disputing 
over the ownership of the !and. PW-I was related to both the parties. 
Nothing has been brought on record to show that he had anything to do 
D with the land in question and for any reason, would side with the deceased. 
It has also not been established that PW-I was otherwise inimically 
disposed toward the accused. Both PW-I and PW-2 made categorical 
, 
statements to the effect that they had gone to the scene of occurrence with 
a view to prevent the appellants from causing obstructions to the ploughing 
E of land by the deceased. They were requested to do so by the decea!ed. In 
fact, PW-1, had advised the deceased to take the matter to the Panchayat 
so that the dispute between the parties could be resolved. PW-I, in his 
deposition, made detailed statements as to how and in what manner the 
deceased was attacked with knives by all the appellants. He had 
furthermore stated the manner in which the injuries were caused to the 
F deceased by each one of them. He had also identified the weapons of assault 
in Court. The statements made by the said witness stand corroborated by 
the medical evidence. PW-2 also supported him in all material particulars. 
The fact that he was the author of the First Information Report is not 
disputed. Having found the deceased to have expired at the place of 
G occurrence, he only went to his house for putting on his shirt and started 
for the police station. He had to walk 8 kms. Three hours must have been 
taken to reach the police station. It has further not been denied or disputed 
that the Investigating Officer (PW-I I) reached the place of occurrence at 
about 12.30 p.m. on the same date and started investigation. The statement 
of PW-10 who recorded the First Information Report has also been taken 
H by the Investigating Officer. It may be true that the Investigating Officer 
ASHOK KlJMAR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
949 
mi

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