LexSUBRAMANI AND ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c SUBRAMANI AND ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AUGUST 28, 2002 [N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; Sections 34, 96, 99, 103, 147, 148, 149, 302, 304 Part I, 324, 326 and 447: Charges of murder, causing grievous hurt, criminal trespass- Conviction-High Court found the accused guilty of having exceeded their right of self-defence and convicted them under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 but acquitted them of the charges of criminal trespass since disputed land was in possession of accused persons-Held, since accused were acquitted D of the charges of committing murder on the ground of exercising of their right of private defence and it could not be ascertained which of the accused exceeded such right, all of them given benefit of doubt-Hence acquitted of the charges. Right of self-defence-Exceeding of-Held, prosecution party not in settled possession of land-Trespassed over land in possession of accused/ E cultivating tenants and assaulted them; injury on vital parts of accused- Under the circumstances, members of prosecution party are aggressors and therefore accused entertained reasonable apprehension-Use of force proved to be excessive in exercise of their right of defence of property and person- In the absence of finding of High Court as to which of the accused exceeded the force, all convicted accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the F charges. Words and Phrases: 'Settled possession '-Meaning of G According to the prosecution, victim/deceased purchased certain H land. Accused-apellant No.1, cultivating tenant on the same land, obstructed delivery of possession of land to the victim/deceased. Panchayat intervened in the matter and directed that half of the disputed land be given to appellant No.1 on payment of price and remaining land be 718 - - -. SUBRAMANJ AND ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 719 retained by the victim/deceased. But appellant No. I did not pay the price A and continued possession on the e~tire plot. The victim/deceased attempted to plough the said plot but appellant No. I protested. On the next day, the deceased along with his son, daughters (PWs. 2 and 3) and son-in-law (PWI) again started ploughing the land when appellant Nos. I to 4 arrived with weapons and accused Nos. 5 and 6 unarmed protested. Appellants I to 4 assaulted the victim with the weapons and accused Nos. 5 and 6 gave B him blows with fists and they also assaulted PWs. and son of the victim/ deceased. The victim/deceased suffered bleeding injuries and W'5 shifted to Government hospital where he died shortly thereafter. Appellant No.2 was also admitted in the same hospital. On the basis of statements of both PWs and Appellant No.2, FlRs. were registered. C Trial Court found appellants guilty and convicted appellant Nos. I and 2 for the offence under Section 302 IPC, appellants Nos. 3 and 4 for the offence under Section 302/34 and the convicted appellants were also found guilty of the offences under Sections 324, 326 and 447 IPC. However, accused Nos. 5 and 6 were acquitted. D On appeal, High Court found appellants guilty of having exceeded their right of private defence and causing grievous hurt to the deceased and PWs. and convicted them under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC, but acquitted them of the charge under Section 447 IPC, since the land in dispute was in possession of appellants as cultivating tenants. E However confirmed their conviction under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. Hence this appeal. It was contended for the appellants that the prosecution party was aggressor since they sought to dispossess them of the land in their possession as cultivating tenants for over SO years; that prosecution party provoked appellants by inflicting injuries on vital parts of their body apprehending danger to their life; that appellants used force against deceasetf and PWs. in exercise of their right of private defence of person and property; and that the prosecution was guilty of suppressing material facts. On behalf of respondent-State, it was contended that since members of prosecution party having trespassed over the plot of land, appellants could not claim possession of the plot of land; and that the appellants did not at all have the right of private defence since it was not clear as to who F G started the assault. H 720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.