VAJRAPU SAMBAYYA NAIDU AND ORS. versus STATE OF A.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 02-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

V AJRAPU SAMBA YY A NAIDU AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
Sections 34, 148, 149, 300, 304 Part I, 324-Accused persons in 
possession of land-Rival party attempting to take possession of land by C 
force and assaulting accused persons with sharp cutting weapons-One of 
them killed in resistance offered by accused persons and injuries caused 
to persons on both sides-Accused claim right of private defence of person 
or property-Held, on facts, accused persons entitled to exercise of right 
of private defence of property as well as person-Nothing is an offence 
done in exercise of right of private defence-Death caused by cumulative D 
effect of all injuries to deceased and not by any single injury-No specific 
injury attributable to any particular accused-Section 341149 !PC not 
applicable in the case of person exercising right of private defence-On 
facts, it is not possible to ascertain as to which of the accused, if at all, 
exceeded their right of private defence-Therefore, all the accused persons E 
entitled to benefit of doubt-Hence their conviction set aside. 
Criminal Appeal-Appealing Accused acquitted-Benefit also extended 
to non-appealing accused in the interest of justice. 
The case of prosecution was that one 'G' was in cultivating F 
possession of 2.50 acres of lands purchased by accused, A-13, and the 
said land was subject matter of litigation between them. On the day 
of the incident, the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful 
assembly and came to the hut of 'G' armed with knives and sticks, they 
were also drunk. Accused, A-1 and A-4, alleged that they had purchased G 
the land from accused, A-13, and they would take possession of the land 
by use of force. Thereafter, accused persons assaulted 'G' and PWs 1 
to 6, 'G' was killed and rest were injured. Post mortem report disclosed 
that deceased suffered 12 injuries which were cumulatively sufficient 
to cause death and no injury by itself was sufficient to cause death in H 
299 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A ordinary course of nature; and that only two injuries were caused by 
sharp cutting weapon and others were only lacerated injuries caused 
by stick. Accused numbering 21 were charged under Sections 148, 447, 
302, 302 r/w 149, 307, 307 r/w 149, 324 and 427 of Indian Penal Code, 
1860. 
B 
Accused persons claimed right of private defence of property as 
well as person. Their case was that accused, A-13, obtained eviction 
order against deceased in respect of the land in cultivating possession 
of the deceased and also obtained actual delivery of possession of the 
land in execution proceedings; that deceased attempted to forcibly 
C occupy the said land and when accused persons protested they were 
assaulted by members of prosecution party with sharp cutting weapons 
and the deceased was killed in resistance offered by them; that 
prosecution failed to explain injuries to accused A-1, A-9 and A-12; 
and that in the proceedings under Section 144 of the Code Criminal 
D Procedure 1973, an order was passed against the deceased. 
Trial Court held that the accused persons including A-13 did not 
commit trespass since the land in dispute was in their actual possession; 
that accused persons did not form an unlawful assembly as long as they 
E did not use force to defend possession Of A-13, but the assembly became 
unlawful when they started using force and indulged in assault on 
members of prosecution party; that no specific injury could be 
attributed to any particular accused; that accused, A-1 to A-4 and 
A-7, had participated in causing injuries to deceased; and that the 
accused persons had right of private defence of property to defend 
F their possession but while exercising that right they exceeded their 
right by causing death of the deceased by assaulting him. Accordingly, 
trial court convicted II accused persons under Section 148 IPC and 
the rest were acquitted giving them benefit of doubt. Besides, accused, 
A-1 to A-4 and A-7 were also convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC 
G and accused, A-1,A-7 and A-10, were convicted under Section 324 IPC. 
All the 11 convicted persons filed appeal in the High Court. 
The High Court held that the deceased and his family members 
were in actual possession of the dispute land and the accused persons 
H forcibly attempted to take over the land. Accordingly, High Court 
V AJRAPU S

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