STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus RAM BHAROSI AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 1129 · Decided: 12-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN 
A 
v. 
RAM BHAROSI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 12, 1998 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Law: 
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 97, 99, 103, 441 and 300 Exception 2. 
c 
Private defence-Right of-Extending to cause death-Availability a/-
Dispute related to ownership and possession of agricultural land-Accused 
fully armed with firearms and lathis whereas complainants (deceased and his 
nephew) unarmed-Accused found ploughing complainant's land and when 
deceased questioned them he was fired upon and his nephew given lathi 
blows-Held: Even assuming that the accused were in possession of the land, D 
the complainants cannot have committed trespass under S.441-0therwise 
also right of private defence can extend to causing death only in case of 
house-breaking by night-Accused being fully armed with premeditation to 
cause death they had the intention of doing more harm than was necessary 
for the purpose of private defence-Hence, Exception 2 to S. 300 not attracted. E 
The respondents-accused were convicted by the Trial Court under 
Section 302/149 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for life. However, the High Court acquitted the accused of the 
offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted them under Sections 307 and 
323 IPC on the ground that the accused acted under the right of private F 
defence. 
According to the prosecution the dispute related to ownership and 
possession of a piece of agricultural land. On the day of the incident the 
accused persons were found ploughing the complainant's land. When the 
deceased questioned the accused as to why they were ploughing the land G 
belonging to their family he was fired upon and his nephew was given lathi 
lows. The deceased and his nephew were unarmed. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
\D : I. The High Court was not right in overturning the finding of H 
\ 
1129 
1130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 
A the trial court without proper consideration of evidence on record that it was 
the complainant party which was in possession of the land on the date of the 
incident and that the accused trespassed into that land fully armed with 
firearms and lathis with the object of killing any one who would obstruct 
them in their design of taking possession of the land. In such circumstances 
B the defence put forward by the accused that they were acting under the right 
of self defence cannot be accepted. ( 1135-C-D) 
2. Thought there would be right of private defence Section 97 of the 
Penal Code, 1860 when offence of criminal trespass or attempting criminal 
trespass is committed, under Section 103 IPC it is only in the case of house 
C trespass that right of private defence can extend to causing death. That is 
not the case here. On the assumption that it was the accused party which 
was in possession of the land the complainant party could be said to have 
committed or attempted to have committed offence of criminal trespass under 
Section 441 IPC. There is nothing to show that the deceased and his nephew 
entered upon the land in question with the intent to commit an offence or to 
D intimidate, insult or annoy the accused party. [1136-E-F; 1137-A) 
3. Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC would also not apply as from the 
findings on record it was not a case where the accused were exercising right 
of private defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing 
more harm than was necessary for the purpose of self-defence. The accused 
E were there fully armed with premeditation to cause death and it could not be 
side that they did not have the intention of doing more harm than was 
necessary for the purpose of private defence. Clearly use of deadly force was 
not justified merely to expel the deceased and his nephew, the alleged 
trespassers. It was nowhere the case of the defence that there was no other 
F way of getting them out of the land. The occasion certainly did not warrant 
any action of self-defence. (1137-D-E) 
Rajinder v. State of Haryana, [1995) 5 SCC 187, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
G 2087 of I 996 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.5.96 of the Rajasthan High Court 
in D.B. Cr!. A. No. 295of1994. 
Aruneshwar Gupta and Ms. Reena Bagga for the Appellants. 
H 
Ashok K. Mahajan for the Respondents. 
' 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAM BHAROSI [D.P. WADHWA, J.) 1131 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P.WADHWA J. We condone delay in SLP (Cr

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