Case: Hira Rai Vs. State of Bihar

3. The incident out of which the case arose took place at about 9.45 A.M. on5 in village Chilhari which is 6 miles from Dumra on Police Station. Plot No. 1327 measuring about 6.68 acres was in the possession of Chhedirai and Jitanrai who had grown their crops therein. One Kamlarai and his wife Suraj Kumari had filed a suit for the possession of this plot. The suit was finally decreed in favour of Suraj Kumari to the extent of 10 annas 8 pies share. The decree was executed about 12 days before the incident by awarding symbolic possession under O. XXI, R. 35 (2) C.P.C. In other words, she was put in joint possession of the property and no actual possession of any portion of the land was given to her. Admittedly the standing crop on the land belonged to Chhedirai and Jitanrai, and Suraj Kumari could have no claim to it. Still on the morning of5 Kamlarai and his son went to the plot with some ten to fifteen labourers for harvesting the crop. Chhedirai and others on his behalf including the appellant Hirarai where already on the spot. They were obviously armed with lathis and spears ready to resist if Kamlarai proceeded to harvest the crop forcibly. There was an altercation in which some five persons on the side of Kamlarai were injured. One of them Biharirai succumbed to the injuries. On the side of Chhedirai, Chhedirai alone appears to have been injured. In due course information was filed at the Police Station and, as already stated, 19 persons were put up for trial out of whom 18 have been acquitted and we are now concerned with the case of only one, namely, the present appellant.

Court's reasoning:
It is contended by Mr. Singh for the appellant that the High Court was in error in thinking that the right of private defence had been exceeded. Chhedirai was being assaulted by a number of members of the prosecution party and deceased Biharirai was one of them. The case that Biharirai and his four companions had come there only to intercede has been rejected and must be rejected, the reason being that it is only these five persons who have received injuries in the assault on the prosecution side. It, therefore, stands to reason that Chhedirai was being assaulted by these five persons and it might well have been that Biharirai was the person who was using the bhala. Although the prosecution party was armed with lathis and bhalas, the prosecution insisted on saying that they were not so armed. Therefore, the possibility of Biharirai being armed with a bhala cannot be eliminated. The very fact that the appellant had used his bhala against Biharirai would go to show that Biharirai might have been using a more deadly weapon than the others. In any case since the prosecution has not been able to show that Biharirai was unarmed when he took part in the assault on Chhedirai, it is difficult to say that the appellant had exceeded the right of private defence. In any event the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant and he must be acquitted.