LexRAJINDER AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAJINDER AND ORS. A v. STATE OF HARYANA JULY 12, 1995 [DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] B Indian Penal Code : Ss. 148,302/149, 307/149, 325/149. 324/149, 323/149 and s.300-Excep- tion 2--Accused charged of various offences beside one of them addi Honally C charged under s.6 of Te!Torist and Dis1uptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985-Dispute regarding ownership of agricultural land giving rise to incident in which 3 persons complainant party died as a result of injuries caused by accused party and some others got grievous injwies-Accused pleading right of private defence of property and person-Held, complainant party did not D commit offence of 'criminal trespass' for they unauthorisedly entered into land in dispute only to pw~uade accused party to withdraw therefrom and not with any intelllion to commit any offence-Accused party had no right of private defence to property entitling them to launch murderous attack-Exception 2 to s.300 not applicable as attack by accused party was premeditated with an intention of doing more ham1 than was necessary for purpose of private E defence. Ss.96 and 104, 1ight of private defence-Held not available against an act which is not an offence-Right of private defence against "criminal trespass" does not extend to voluntarily causing of death. S.444-'Criminal trespass'-Held, no offence of 'criminal trespass' can be said to have been committed unless any of illlention refe1Ted to in the section is proved. F Legal Maxims : Maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus'-Not ap- G plicable in crimin.al trial. TI1e eighteen appellants alongwith ten others were, in connection with an incident, charged with various offences under the Penal Code. One of them was also charged under s.6 of Terrorist and. Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. The cause giving rise to the incident was a dispute H 863 864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. l S.C.R. A between the complainant party and the accused party with regard to possession of some agricultural land which according to the prosecution case, belonged to the father-in-law of PW 17. He died leaving behind a will whereby he had bequeathed the land in dispute to his only son and and after latter's death his wife, PW 17, came in possession of the land in B dispute. Later, she handed over the possession of the said land to PW 19 under an agreement to sell. As regards the incident, the prosecution case was that on 17.11.1985 at about 10 A.M. when brothers and other family members of PW 19 were working in their land nearby the and in dispute, two of the appellants came C there with two camel ploughs; thereafter, the other accused, armed with weapons, reached there in three tempos and a tractor and started plough- ing the land in dispute. When PW 17 alongwith the family members of PW 19 resisted, two of the accused-appellants started two tempos and dashed agaist Dl, D2, D3 and DW 14 as a resnlt of which they fell down; then other D accused started beating them with jailis, lathis, ballams and pharsas which resulted in the death of Dl, D2 and D3 and grievous injuries to others. All the appellants then fled away leaving two tempos two camel ploughs there. PW 13 rushed to her house and narated the incident to PW 19 and both of them then left for the police station. On the way they met Police Inspector PW 22 who was coming to the village in connection with a case E lodged by one of the accused earlier. He recorded the statement of PW 13 and sent it to police station for registration of the case. On reaching the place of occurrence he sent the bodies of Dl, D2, and D3 for autopsy and completed other formalities. The investigation culminated in trial of the accused before the Designated Court. F The defence case, as given out by the accused in their statements under s.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and DW 15, was that they were cultivating the land in dispute for a long time; when they came to know that PW 19 was planning to disturb their possession, they lodged complaints on 6.11.1985 and 11.11.1985; in the night between 11/12-11-1985, G when PW 19 and his men damaged their crops on the land in dispute, they lodged another c~mplaint where upon some of the men. of PW 19 were arrested. As regards the incident of 17 .11.1985, the defence case was that seven of the accused-appellants went to the land in dispute with camel ploughs with a tempo carrying fertilizers and seeds;
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.