GCTTIPULLA VENKATA SIVA SUBRAYANAM & ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 423 · Decided: 19-01-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

423 
Ii 
GCITIPULLA VENKATA SIVA SUBRAYANAM & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. 
January 19, 1970 
B 
[M .. HIDAYATULLAH, C. J., A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUI\, JJ.J 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), ss. 96 to 106--Right ,•f private 
d~fence-Scope of-Plea no: raised by accus2d-Duty vj Co1:rt, lVlien 
th?re is evidence showing right of privarc defence. 
'''ith r~spe;;t to a kuilf!i., which \Vas government 
propeny, 
certain 
persons who had .occupied a part of the land in the kunta, and the accused, 
were asser~ing their respective claims, the former to the use of the land 
in the kunta for cultivation 
and latter. to the use of the kunta as a 
source. of irrigation. The occupie;s and accused 
belonged to 
opposite 
political factions. 
A suit \Vas I11ed by the occupiers .and the civil court 
passed two orders of injunction, one restraining the accused from inter-
fe.ring with the occupie!'s' possession, and the othe.r, restraining the uccu-
piers from opening sluices in the bund of the kunta. While the suit was 
pending the ·...iccupiers raised corps on their land and the accused raised a new 
bund. 
Since their crops. were being damaged as a result of the raising of 
the new bund, the occupiers approached the police authorities and tahsil-
dar· for the removal of the bund, but they did not give any effective help. 
The accused were not \Villing to allow the removal of the bund v1..-ithout 
any Government orde:. TOereupon, the occupiers and· their supporters, 
numbering not less than twenty went to the. s9ot to remove the bund by 
force, but the accused were present at the spot determined not. to allow 
the bund to be, rem'Oved. 
In the fight that ensued, the first accused. aged 
about 60 years, received ten injuries on the vital parts of his body and 
the. Civil Assistant Su~geon who attended on him thought it was qeces-
sary to take a dying declaration from him. The second accused.who was 
about 50 years old, was also subjected to severe beating. 
Some of the 
other accu5ed also received injuries. The. tenth accused, who had a gun 
in his hand, and who was the son-in-law of the first accused, shot at the 
a'ctual aggressors and killed three of 1hem 
and iniured 
another. 
The 
party of the occupiers asserted that they went to the scene of occurrence 
unarmed and with the intention of peacefully persuading the accused to 
remove the bund and that when beaten by the accused they snatched the 
sticks and spears from them and retaliated. The tenth accused put forth a"" 
plea Of alibi. The oher accused asserted. that the party of the. occupiers 
were the aggressors and that tf:ley acted 10 serf defence. Huld1ng that n 
was not material to consider whether the occupiers and their supporters 
had brought with them sticks or snatched them from the accused, that the 
accused had attacked first and that the injuries to the accused did not 
give. rise to any right of p~ivate defence, the High Court C.Jnvicted some 
of the accused for the offence 11rid~r ss. 147 J T>.C .. ~o:ne. for the offence 
under s. 148 I.P .C., and the tenth accused for the offences of murder and 
g:ievous hurt with a dang~rous weapon, 
Jn appeal to this Court, 
HELD · (I) When- they went to the scene, rhe occupiers knew that 
determined· not to allow the removal of the bund without an order ~rom 
determined not te a1tow the removal of the bund without a~ order rroi:n 
~he Gove-nment autiJorities. 
In the circumstances the occupiers and their 
424 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 3 S.C.R. 
supporters must have gone to the kunta fully armed, and it was not possi-
ble to accept their version. [434 E-G] 
(2) The occupiers moved in the matter only after the new bund was 
raised by the accused. They had ample opportunity of approaching public 
authorities to have· the 
bund removed. 
When the occupiers and 
their 
supporters found that the. police were guilty of a grave dereliction of their 
duty, they could have approached the higher authorities or the civil court 
in which the suit was pending. Instead of having recourse to those steps 
they de.cided to go to the scene in large. numbers fully determined to re-
move the hund by force. 
When that attempt was foiled by the accused 
with sho•.v of force, the members of occupiers' party mi::rcilessly beat up 
some of the accused 
persons who were advanced in age. 
In such 
a 
situation it \Vas not possible for an ave·rage person placed in the position 
of the tenth. accused, to take a calm an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.