Case: Mannu and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

2. The 10 appellants and 3 others were tried by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 307/149. The learned Sessions Judge found all the accused persons guilty of the charges levelled against them and sentenced them to varying terms of imprisonment. The trial court sentenced the appellants to a terms of imprisonment. The trial court sentenced the appellants to a term of 5 years R.I. under Sec. 302/149 an obvious illegality. The complaint preferred a revision to the High Court to revise the sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge and pass an appropriate sentence. The convicted accused preferred an appeal against their conviction and sentenced to the High Court. By a common judgment, the High Court disposed of the appeal and the revision petition. The High Court acquitted three persons and founded the 10 appellants guilty of an offence under Section 302/149 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. It also found the appellants guilty of other offences and imposed varying terms of imprisonment.      3. The special leave granted by this court was restricted only to the question of the offences and sentences imposed on them.

Court's reasoning:
7. In appeal before us, the learned counsel appearing for the defence did not question the findings of the Courts below that the occurrence took place as put forward by the prosecution but he submitted that even if the prosecution version is accepted as true, the defence is entitled to right of private defence. On the findings we are unable to hold that the appellants are entitled to right of private defence. The trial court as well as the High Court have found that when Chhotey Lal and Kunwar Lal were going to the market they were waylaid by 13 persons, armed with various deadly weapons and the offence took place in the field of Raja Ram. The case put forward by the defence is that the incident took place near the field of Raja Ram. The case put forward by the defence is that the incident took place near the field of Vishwanath when the accused attempted to driven the cattle which were unauthorisedly grazing in the accuseds fields but the Police Officer, who investigated the crime found no marks of any trampling in the field of Viswanath or near about. There were no bloodstains or nay signs of fight on the scene where, according to the defence, the occurrence took place. On the other hand the prosecution had established that the occurrence took place in the place spoken to by them. On the findings that when the prosecution witness, P.W. 1 and the deceased were going to the market, they were waylaid and attacked by the appellants with dangerous weapons and that the occurrence did not take place in the field of Viswanath as pleaded by the accused, no question of right of private defence arises.