LATEL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was accused No. 1 in Sessions Trial No. 39/93 before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge of Sessions Court, Bilaspur (M.P.). He along with 11 other persons were charged under Ss. 148, 302 and 307 read with S. 149, I.P.C. for having committed the murder of Sahdev Tiwari and his son Ashok Tiwari and for having attempted to cause the death of Vijay Kumar Tiwari. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and 8 others under Ss. 302 and 307 read with S. 149, I.P.C. for the death of Ashok and Sahdev Tiwari and convicted them under S. 302 read with S. 149, I.P.C. for causing the death of Sahdev Tiwari and sentenced them to undergo RI for life. He, however, did not convict the appellant for the offence under S. 307 while he did so in regard to some others. On appeal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur while confirming the sentence of the appellant herein under S. 302, I.P.C. for the murder of Sahdev Tiwari and sentencing him to life imprisonment also convicted the appellant along with one Bhajan for the offence punishable under S. 307, I.P.C. for having caused the death of Ashok and on this count sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under S. 304, I.P.C. It is against this order of conviction and sentence, said Latel has preferred this appeal. We are informed at the Bar that the other convicted person on this count that is Bhajan has not preferred any appeal.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 435/1 measuring about 1.71 acres was the subject-matter of dispute between the appellant herein and deceased-Sahdev Tiwari. There were many litigations going on between the parties in regard to the said property. On 5-7-1987, it is the prosecution case that the deceased-Sahdev Tiwari, his sons Ashok and Vijay Tiwari along with Jeetram, Manharan, Rajaram and some labourers had gone with a plough to this land for sowing. It is stated that no sooner than they commenced ploughing their land, the accused persons including the appellant appeared on the scene armed with deadly weapons and surrounded Sahdev and others and launched a blistering attack. It is further stated that the appellant along with the acquitted accused conjointly assaulted the complainant party in which the acquitted accused-Chandrabhan and Bhajan who stands now convicted for offence under S. 304, Part I assaulted Vijay Kumar son of Sahdev who survived the attack and who is examined as P.W. 10 with 'Tabbal' and Latel and Bhajan attacked Ashok with 'Tabbal' as a result of which Ashok and Vijay both fell down on the ground and became uncon-scious. Vijay on regaining consciousness saw the appellant, Bhajan, Chandrabhan and Bundaru assaulting Ashok with 'Tabbal' and lathi. His pleading with the accused not to cause further injuries to Ashok proved to be of no avail. Seeing this, it is stated that Vijay and his father Sahdev started fleeing from the said field. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused persons chased the duo (Vijay and his father) and one of the accused persons threw a 'Tabbal' at them which, according to the prosecution, hit the deceased-Sahdev. This was also noticed by P.W. 2 Lalakram and other persons in the neighbouring fields, who pleaded with the accused persons not to beat Sahdev and Vijay any more. In the melee, it is stated that Vijay escaped from the said place and ran towards his house. Thereafter, he proceeded to the Police Station at Mungeli where the complaint Ex. P-27 was lodged with C. K. Tripathi, SHO, P.W. 21. As per the said complaint, Vijay is supposed to have told that he does not know whether his father is dead or alive. Accordingly, the Police registered a case being Crime No. 138/87 under Ss. 147, 148, 307, I.P.C. and the Investigating Officer immediately rushed to the village and learnt from Kotwarin Ram Bhai that Ashok and Sahdev had been done to death and accordingly a village unnatural death information Ex. P-35 was recorded. It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellant herein also lodged a report at the Police Station, Mungeli on the very same day stating that he was in possession of an agricultural field since long and had sown his crop about 8 days prior to the incident but the deceased-Sahdev and Ashok along with Vijay and servants had come to the field and had belaboured them. This report was recorded in the general diary at serial No. 170 which is marked as Ex. P-36.

(3.) Since there is no appeal against the acquittal for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, suffice it to say that the High Court on consideration of the material on record came to the specific conclusion that from the record available before it, it is clear that at no point of time Sahdev was put in possession of the property pursuant to his purchase of the same. It also held that having come to the conclusion that Sahdev was not in possession of the property, the one and the only corollary was that the appellant-Latel was in possession of the land. On this basis, it came to the conclusion that so far as the first part of the incident which took place in Survey No. 435/1 is concerned, it is an admitted fact on sides that the incident in question did take place. The High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant and his party had the right of private defence available to them in defending their possession of the property but so far as the appellant and Bhajan are concerned, they exceeded their right of private defence to the extent of causing injuries which led to the death of Ashok. Hence, they are liable for the consequences of their Acts and are liable to be punished under S. 304, Part I, I.P.C., to serve a sentence of 10 years' R.I.