RAM PAT & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 1115 · Decided: 12-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 8 S.C.R. 1115 
RAM PAT &·ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 581 of 2007) 
MAY 12, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 3021149 and 44711481506 
A 
B 
- Purchase of undivided share in properly by appellants - Co-
owner's son ploughing the said land - Appellants anned with 
C 
weapons entering the suit land and causing fatal injuries to 
co-owner and injuries to others - Appellants pleading a 
contrary case - Acquittal by trial court, however, conviction by 
High Court - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Right 
of private defence can be exercised provided any occasion 
D 
. arises therefor - Appellants were not in settled possession of 
the property, thus, had no right of private defence to defend 
the possession of the property- They were aggressors being 
fully anned - Occurrence of the incident stands admitted -
Evidence of co-owner's son trustworthy - Non explanation of E 
simple injuries sustained by two accused as also delay in 
lodging FIR not fatal - More so, complainants were not anned, 
except one who had a small twig. 
According to the prosecution case, DR, RP along 
with others purchased undivided share of the owners of F 
the property. HR was the co-owner of the land. After 
execution of sale deeds, accused tried to enter into the 
suit land and plough it. On the fateful day when R-son of 
HR was ploughing his agricultural land with the tractor 
and HR was also present, accused-SR, DR, B, RR, RP 
and BL armed with lathis and jallies caused fatal injuries 
· to HR. LS, DK and M who came at the scence of 
· occurrence were also injured. Accused SR and RR were 
also injured. Trial court acquitted the accused. In appeal, 
1115 
H 
1116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. 
A High Court convicted accused RP u/s 302 and remaining 
accused u/s 302/149 and also u/s. 447/148/506 IPC and 
sentenced them accordingly. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. The accused admittedly did not purchase 
any specific portion of the property. They purchased 
undivided share. By reason thereof, in law, they did not 
acquire any right to obtain possession of the lands. HR-
deceased and his family being the co-sharers did not give 
c any consent for handing over their possession in their 
favour. Therefore, the accused persons being purchasers 
of an undivided share merely acquired a right to sue for 
partition. Two sale deeds were executed in favour of 
accused. Trial judge was wholly incorrect in holding that 
D having regard to the stipulations contained in the deeds, 
possession of the vended properties had been handed 
over; the vendees would be deemed to be in possession. 
That is not the law. Handing over of possession is a 
physical act. Nothing has been brought on record to 
E establish that in fact physical possession had been 
handed over by all the co-sharers. [Para 12) [1134-A-C, 
G-H; 1135-A-B] 
M. V.S. Manikaya/a Rao vs. M. Narasimhaswami and 
F Ors. AIR 1966 SC 470; Hardeo Rai vs. Sakuntala Devi and 
Ors. 2008 (7) SCC 46; Peethani Suryanarayana and Anr. vs. 
Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore and Ors. 2009 (2) SCALE 
461, referred to. 
1.2. PW 8-R was not confronted with the purported 
c;3 admission by him. He could have explained the same. In 
any event, admission on his part was not such which was 
~ 
admissible against him proprio vigore. In a case of this 
nature, the statement made in the mentioned documents 
or before the DSP cannot be said to be an admission that 
H they had been totally dispossessed which would be 
RAM PAT & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 
1117 
+ 
admissible against PW 8 proprio vigore. Another A 
-
purported admission by PW 8 disclosed that the 
subordinate judge had confirmed the order of injunction 
whereagainst appeal was preferred by DR and RP. 
Parties admittedly had also been litigating before the 
Revenue Authorities in regard to their respective claims 
B 
in the matter of getting their respective names mutated 
in the revenue records. The entries in the revenue 
records stood in the name of the deceased and his family. 
[Para 12] [1136-E-F; 1137-C-F] 
Bharat Singh and Anr. vs. Bhagirathi (1966) 1 SCR 606; c 
(Thakur) Nirman Singh and Ors. vs. Thakur Lal Rudra Partab 
..,... . 
Narain Singh and Ors. 1926 Privy Council 100, referred to . 
1.3. It is proceeded on the basis that the entries made 
in the revenue records were not decisive for proving D 
actual possession. Appellants were
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.