The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramcharit

Heard on admission.

The State has preferred the present leave application against the judgment dated 11.6.2013 of acquittal passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in ST No.202/2008 whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 147, 307 or 307/ 149, 325 or 325/ 149, 323 or 323/ 149 (two counts) of IPC.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 1.8.2005 at about 8:00 AM Shapathmuni went to his field situated at Village Moharva (Police Station Baikunthpur District Rewa) along with some labourers to weed the crop in the south side of field. The respondents objected and assaulted him by various weapons. Devraj, Rampal and Chudamani also sustained injuries. The victims were taken to the Government Hospital, Rewa for examination and treatment and thereafter the case was registered.

After considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-State and evidence adduced by the parties, it would be apparent that charge under Section 307 of IPC was framed for the victim Chudamani, who sustained three injuries on his head and two injuries on his left leg. However, no fracture was found to him on any part of the body. Also no symptom of the brain hemorrhage was found to him, hence the respondents could not be held guilty of the offence under Section 307 of IPC or any inferior offence except of Section 323 of IPC.

Secondly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted the respondents on the basis of right of private defence. In this connection Dr. M.S.Siddiqui (DW-1) has proved the MLC reports Ex.D-7 and D-8 to prove five injuries to the respondent Sheshmani and three injuries to the respondent Ramcharit. The prosecution witnesses have failed to give any explanation to their injuries.

Also Devraj (PW-1) in para 3 has accepted that the respondents are legal representatives of his brother Udayraj whereas his youngest brother Shapathmuni was residing with him. Udayraj had expired. On the report lodged by the respondent Gita Devi, a criminal trial of rape was initiated against his sons Harihar and Chudamani. Thereafter a compromise took place. Shapathmuni sold 56 decimal land (half of the entire land) to Ramcharit and thereafter he sold 26 decimal land to one Onkar and 30 decimal land to Brijendra. Hence it would be apparent that Shapathmuni had already disposed off the entire land.

Devraj has also stated that Shapathmuni had filed a civil suit to get the land back from the respondent Ramcharit. Temporary injunction was granted by the Civil Judge but the same was vacated by the appellate Court. Thereafter the plaint was returned by the trial Court in want of territorial jurisdiction. Hence according to the main prosecution witnesses the complainant had no title or possession on the disputed land.

It was for the complainant to prove his possession on the disputed land. If he had sown the crop in that filed then a revenue entry could be produced in support of the complainant, but prosecution has failed to prove such an entry.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the respondents were in possession of the disputed land and they had sown the crop. The complainant and his companions had no right to enter in the field. According to the FIR, the complainant and his companions entered in the field, then certainly they were the aggressors, who went to destroy the crop of the respondents and to get a forceful possession. It is strange that the complainant added the name of Gita as an accused that she had a sharp cutting weapon whereas no one sustained any injury of sharp cutting weapon. Hence it would be apparent that the name of Gita was falsely added as an accused because on her report a rape case was initiated against the sons of the victim Devraj.

If entire conduct of Devraj is considered, then it would be apparent that to save his sons in a trial of rape case, he shifted the land of his unmarried brother of Shapathmuni. Again instead of compensating his brother Shapathmuni, he took him to get forceful possession of the land already given to Ramcharit. However, it is established that the respondents had not only a right of private defence relating to property against dishonest intention and overact of Devraj and his companions but they also had a right of private defence of the person of the various respondents as the respondent Sheshmani and Ramcharit have sustained injuries due to assault caused by the complainant and his companions. If 5 to 6 persons have visited to destroy the crop of the respondents and to take possession forcefully then right of private defence cannot be weighed in golden scales.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, no reason is visible to grant leave. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents. Consequently, the present leave application filed by the applicant-State is hereby dismissed at motion stage.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court along with its record for information.