Case: Sabal Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan

Background of the CaseOne Smt. Bhanwari Bai, an issueless widow, was an allottee of two Murabhas of land, bearing survey Nos. 32 and 33, in Chak No. 9. She died in 1972. Thereupon, a dispute arose about the cultivation and possession of that land. Sabal Singh, appellant claimed that he was the nearest heir of Bhanwari Bai deceased, who residing with him at the time of her death. Sheodhan Singh, Ridmal Singh and Jatan Singh deceased laid a rival claim to that land inter alia on the ground that they were in possession of that land even during thee of the widow, and were getting it cultivated ons through PWs Banta Singh and Majura Singh. The deceased persons used to reside in a (dhani) farm hut, situated in the disputed land, to supervise its cultivation, as the land is situated at a far off distance from the habitation of the village.5. Theplea of the appellants at the trial was one of private defence of property and person. The case sought to be made out by the defence was that the appellants were in established possession of the disputed land since January 21, 1975, to the exclusion of the deceased persons; that on March 8, 1975, the deceased persons along with others, came drunk and fully armed to the field to evict the appellants and carry away the crop by force. The deceased attacked Prem Singh and Ugam Singh who, in, wielded their lathis and caused injuries to the deceased. Sabal Singh plea was that as he was not present at the time and place of occurrence and that he learnt it from his sons later, and then unsuccessfully attempted to lodge a counter F.I.R. on the basis of this derivative information, with the police.In connection with this plea of private defence, the undisputed facts and circumstances set out below raise an inference that in all probability, the appellants were in actual possession of the land in dispute from January 21, 1975 up to the time of occurrence on Mach 8, 1975 :      (a) Ridmal deceased made a report (Ex.) at Police Station Vijay Nagar alleging that the appellants (before us) along with other persons, came armed and threatened that the informant and his men should leave the Dhani and the field otherwise they would kill them. It is also mentioned in that report that the appellants then forcibly occupied the Dhani and drove away under pain of death, Banta Singh and Hajura Singh, the cultivator of the informant from the field. In consequence of this report a case under Sections 447, 448, 504 read with Section 148 was registered against the appellants and others.      (b) There is no evidence that thereafter, the appellants were ever evicted from the Dhani and the field. Indeed, PW 8, Banta Singh candidly admitted that after January 1, 1975 till the occurrence the deceased Sheodhan Singh never came to the Dhani i.e. the field.(c) On March 5, 1975, Sheodhan Singh deceased made a petition (Ex.) under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in the Court ofl Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar against the appellants, alleging a Dispute between the parties over possession of the land, likely to result in a breach of the peace.      (d) The Magistrate thereafter, in those proceedings passed on order to attach the land and crop thereon. Such attachment was done on March 8, 1975, i.e. on the day preceding the occurrence. The Tahsildar (PW 17) was appointed the Receiver in respect of the attached property.      (e) There, is no evidence that in pursuance of the Magistrates order, the Receiver evicted the appellants from the Dhani and the field or he appointed any of the deceased or the accused or anybody else as his manager, or sapurdar of the crop lying or standing in the field.      (f) It was the prosecution case, itself, that on March 9, 1975, when the deceased persons followed by Banta Singh and Hajura Singh, reached the disputed field to share the Gowar crop, the appellants were already there and started the assault.      (g) The prosecution case was that Ridmal Singh and Sheodhan Singh deceased used to get the disputed land cultivated ons through PWs. Banta Singh and Hajura Singh. The understanding between the deceased and the cultivators was that the latter would give half the produce to the former. There is no evidence that the deceased also contributed their labour, implements or capital in meeting the cost of 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.

Reasoning:
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.