RAM BILAS YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The five appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Bihar, for the offences under Section 302/34, Section 326/34 and also for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court. The appellants and the prosecution witnesses 1 to 4 are agriculturists having properties of their own. It appears that there was a dispute between these two parties regarding irrigation of their fields. Appellants' paddy fields are at higher level. On 30-8-1980, P.W. 2 Babulal Yadav had cut the ridge of the field of the appellants to allow flow of water from that field to his field. As the appellants objected to the cutting of ridge by P.W. 2 Babulal Yadav, the parties on either side agreed to have a Panchayat to settle the dispute. On the next morning, i.e. 31-8-1980, however, the appellants came to their paddy fields and started repairing the ridge. At that time, P.W. 2 Babulal Yadav was present in his field. After some time, P.W. 4 Rajdeo Yadav, son of Ram Suchit Yadav came and informed P.W. 1 Ram Bharosh Thakur and Ram Suchit Yadav that there may be some fight between the appellants and P.W. 2 Babulal Yadav. P.W. 1 Ram Bharosh Thakur, P.W. 3 Subodh Yadav and deceased Ram Suchit Yadav hurriedly went to the place of the incident. One teacher from Nepal, who was present in the house of Ram Suchit Yadav, also accompanied them. P.W. 3 Subodh Yadav asked appellant Ram Bilas Yadav as to why he was meddling with the ridge when it had been decided to have a settlement in the Panchayat. The appellant Ram Bilas Yadav asked P.W. 3 Subodh Yadav as to how he had become a big mediator in the matter and exhorted other appellants to beat P.W. 3 Subodh Yadav and others. The first appellant Ram Bilas Yadav cut P.W. 3 Subodh Yadav with gandasa and his nose was chopped. All the appellants were armed with gandasa, bhala, spade and kudali, etc. They inflicted various cut injuries on Ram Suchit Yadav (deceased). He fell on the ground. P.W. 2 Babulal Yadav was also attacked by appellant Ramdeo Yadav with gandasa. The appellant Ramasis Yadav hit P.W. 2 Babulal Yadav with lathi. People in the village collected there and found that P.W. 3 Subodh Yadav, P.W. 2 Babulal Yadav and Ram Suchit Yadav had sustained serious injuries and took them to the hospital. Ram Suchit Yadav died while undergoing treatment in the hospital.

(2.) P.W. 1 Ram Bharosh Thakur gave FI statement at about 12.30 p.m. on 31-8-1980. In the F.I. statement, he mentioned the names of all the five appellants and the various overt acts alleged to have been committed by them. P.W. 8, who recorded the statement of P.W. 1 Ram Bharosh Thakur, registered a case against these appellants and started the investigation. He prepared a roughly drawn map of the place of occurrence and also recorded, under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, statements of the various witnesses. The post-mortem examination was conducted by P.W. 6 Dr. F. A. Khan and it was found that there were four incised injuries on the body of the deceased Ram Suchit Yadav. Injury No. 3 was on the left parietal bones over scalp with brain matter coming out of the wound. He was of the opinion that injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were caused by Farsa and these injuries were of serious nature and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 were stated to have been caused by lathi blows. On the side of the prosecution, four eye-witnesses were examined and they gave an account as to how the incident took place. These witnesses also spoke about the involvement of all the appellants in the incident.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S. B. Sanyal, made a very persuasive argument to the effect that the appellants were entitled to exercise their right of private defence as the whole incident happened while they were exercising their right in respect of the property. It was further argued that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted, the offence, if any, committed by these appellants would only come under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code as the overt acts committed by the appellants were only in exercise of their right of private defence. He also drew our attention to the fact that the incident happened when the appellants were repairing their ridge and they had every right to exercise their right of private defence. It was argued that P.Ws. 2 to 4 and deceased Ram Suchit Yadav caused trouble and prevented the appellants from doing their work and that they also tried to attack the appellants. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants further pointed out that appellant Ram Bilas Yadav had sustained extensive injuries and this was as a result of the fact that the appellants were attacked by P.Ws. 2 to 4 and deceased Ram Suchit Yadav and the incident happened in the property of the appellants, which was on the western side of the disputed ridge. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that from the evidence of P.W. 8, the Investigating Officer, there was sufficient indication to show that the incident happened in the paddy field of the appellants as some paddy plants in their field were found trampled.