Case: Sabal Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan

cultivation. This means that Banta Singh and Hajura Singh, were in actual cultivating possession in the statute of tenants. But in the Khasra Girdwari entries (P1 and P2) relating to the relevant period, Banta Singh or Hajura Singh are not shown in possession of the land in any capacity, whatever. 5. The above circumstances clearly show that forcible occupation of the Dhani and the land by the appellants could not be viewed - as the learned judges of the High Court have done a single or sporadic act of trespass by the accused. They came with a determination to stay and did stay and continue in effective physical possession of the disputed land with crops thereon till the occurrence on March 8, 1975. 6. The circumstances mentioned below establish by inference a strong possibility, verging on probability, about the existence of the fact that the persons went in a body to the field, armed and primed with liquor, with a determination to remove the Gowar crop by force from the possession and control of the accused : (a) The investigating officer found on the scene of occurrence, near the dead bodies, several weapons, namely, Jei (Article 6), as a Sela Blade (Article 6), a lathi, one kukari and one sword. (b) No evidence has been brought on the record to show that these weapons belonged to the accused or had been used by them in assaulting the deceased persons. On the contrary, at the trial, the eye-witness Banta Singh, Hajura Singh and Amar Singh categorically stated that the accused had belaboured the deceased persons with lathis only. It was nobodys case that the accused used more than one weapon in assaulting the deceased. Consistently with the same story, the investigating police officer had recovered one lathi from each of the three accused. The lathis said to have been recovered from Prem Singh and Ugam Singh were found stained with blood but not the one recovered from Sabal Singh. (c) The appellants had also received injuries. The medical witness who had examined the accused-appellants on March 16, 1975, found three injuries on Ugam Singh and seven on Prem Singh. The injuries were simple and were caused with a blunt object. In the opinion of the medical witness, these injuries were 6 to 8 days old at the time their examination. This means, they could have been received by the accused in the course of the occurrence on March 9, 1975.The High Court has discounted this conclusion mainly on the ground that the accused did not get their injuries examined soon after the occurrence. With respect, we are unable to agree with this reasoning. It was manifest that these two accused were reluctant to get their injuries examined because of the fear that it was an incriminating circumstance indicating their participation in the crime. Even after their arrest, the accused were examined by the Doctor at the instance of the police The learned judge of the High Court have held - contrary to the story narrated at the trial by the eye-witness, - that the Sela and Jei found at the spot had been used by the appellants in inflicting injuries on the deceased, and in the process, they seem to have used in F.I.R. as if it were a substantive of evidence. The High Court Was clearly in error in making out or reconstructing a new case, which was not set up by the prosecution at the trial. (c) On post-mortem examination, alcohol was found in the stomachs of the deceased persons : (Ridmal Singh, Sheodhan Singh and Jatan Singh). This shows the deceased person had come to the spot after having primed themselves with liquor. (e) Since it was the positive case of the prosecution at the trial, that the accused had belaboured the deceased, only with lathis, and not with any of the blunt and sharp weapons found at the scene of occurrence, the only reasonable inference is that these weapons viz., Jei, Sela blade, lathi, sword, kukari were used by persons other then the appellants. So far as the blunt weapons (Jei and lathi) which were found at the spot are concerned, the greater possibility is that they were used by the deceased persons in inflicting injuries on Prem Singh and Ugam Singh, appellants because all the injuries on the latter were caused with blunt weapons. As regard the sharp weapon (sword), it might have been used in causing the incised injuries to the deceased by some person other then three appellants, who according to the prosecution, had used lathis only in the assault. This means the possibility of the participation of one more person armed with a sharp-edged weapon, addition to the three appellants, in the assault upon the deceased, cannot altogether be ruled out. 7. In Sum, the circumstances catalogued above, probables, the existence of these facts : (i) The accused were in actual, effective possession of the disputed land and the crops standing or lying therein. (ii) The deceased per son were unarmed. They were drunk at the time of occurrence. (iii) The deceased party went to the filed with a determination to remove the Gowara crop from the possession or control of the accused. (vi) The occurrence was not a one-sided affair, there was some fight, in the course of which, blows were exchanged and both sides received injuries. But the injuries inflicted by the accused party on the deceased persons both in severity and number were far greater then those received by the accused party. 8. In view of these facts, it can be said that the accused had a right to defend their possession and property. But the force used by them was recklessly excessive, and as such, they were rightly not given the benefit of Exception II to Section 300 I.P.C. Nevertheless, the circumstances showing that the appellants had a right on private defence of property, which they exceeded, could be taken into consideration in extenuation of the extreme penalty. 9.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]In view of these facts, it can be said that the accused had a right to defend their possession and property. But the force used by them was recklessly excessive, and as such, they were rightly not given the benefit of Exception II to Section 300 I.P.C. Nevertheless, the circumstances showing that the appellants had a right on private defence of property, which they exceeded, could be taken into consideration in extenuation of the extreme penalty.