Janki Pasban and Others vs Emperor

Manohar Lall, J.—This application was admitted to consider the propriety of the convictions of the four petitioners whose convictions were maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for offences under ss.323 and 324 read with Section 114, Penal Code, only. The petitioners Eamsurat and Janki were convicted u/s 828 and the remaining petitioners for abetment of offence u/s 324, i. e� read with Section 114, Penal Code. These petitioners along with others were found guilty by the Subdivisional Officer of Sitamarhi for offences under Sections 147 and 148, Penal Code, but the conviction and sentences under these Sections were set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge upon his finding that the assembly of which the accused were found to be members was not unlawful as they were entitled to defend the property which was in their possession and resist the complainant who wanted to get possession on the strength of a farzi deed.

The case of the prosecution was that on the date of the occurrence the informant Ramlagan Rai went to his field in plot No. 2431 at about one pahar after sunrise with two labourers to cut the crop which he had sown in five kathas, and when they had cut the crops of about one katha, the seven accused persons, including the petitioners, came armed with lathis, garasas and other weapons and the petitioner Fakir told him not to cut the crop. The informant refused to stop cutting, whereupon the petitioners, Fakir and Siaram, ordered Ramsurat and Janki, who are the other petitioners before us, to assault him. At this stage it is said that these two petitioners struck him with lathis when the other incidents happened, which are related quite clearly in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The defence of the petitioners was that the complainant was never in possession of the land in question either on the basis of the bharna deed or of the sale-deed as those transactions were apparently nominal ones.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after examining the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the land had come into the possession of the decree-holder-auction purchaser and that the settlements were made by him with the accused party as stated by the defence. Having come to this conclusion, he was clearly of the opinion that the common object of Siaram and his men as noted in the charges under Sections 147 and 148, Penal Code, namely, to prevent the complainant and his men from cutting the gaddar crop in the field, was not unlawful, as they were entitled to defend the property which was in their possession. This I have already stated.

Upon these findings it is difficult to see how the convictions of Siaram and Fakir can be maintained for the offence u/s 324 read with Section 114, Penal Code. All that they were alleged to have done was that they ordered Ramsurat and Janki to assault the first informant, and the order was given by them at the time when the informant was trespassing into the land which has been found to belong rightly to and in possession of the accused party. They had never ordered Ramsurat and Janki to cause grievous hurt to the first informant. Accepting the entire evidence of the prosecution against these petitioners, they, on these findings, cannot be said to have exceeded the right of private defence. Their convictions and sentences u/s 324 read with Section 114, Penal Code, must, therefore, be set aside. With regard to the petitioners Ramsurat and Janki, they have been convicted u/s 323, Penal Code, only. The injuries, which they are said to have caused, have not been found to be grievous but simple injuries. Upon the findings which I have reproduced above, these petitioners were justified in resisting the aggression of the first informant, and they had a right to remove the first informant from their field provided they did not exceed the right of private defence of property. Having regard to the nature of the injuries, it cannot be said that they exceeded the right of private defence of property which was undoubtedly with them. The convictions of these petitioners also must be set aside for the offence u/s 323, Penal Code.

The result is that the application is allowed, the convictions and sentences of petitioners Ramsurat and Janki u/s 323 and of Siaram and Fakir u/s 324 read with Section 114, Penal Code, are set aside and that they must be set at liberty forthwith. If they are on bail, their bail bonds will be cancelled. If the fines have already been e paid, they will be refunded.

Chatterji, J.

I agree.