JOGINDER AHIR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Special leave from a judgment of the Patna High Court.

(2.) Four persons namely Jagmohan Ahir, Joginder Ahir, Budhnath Ahir and Manpuran Ahir were tried for having caused the death of Pahna Uraon on the 9th July, 1965 between 8 or 9 A. M. in a paddy field bearing plot No. 1797 in village Pandaria Kusum total in the District of Ranchi. They were convicted by the Trial Judge under S. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code read with S. 34 and each was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. On appeal the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to one of three years rigorous imprisonment, in the case of each of the four persons. A petition under Article 136 was brought to this Court by the four convicted persons. Special Leave was declined with regard to Jagmohan Ahir but was granted with regard to the other appellants. It was limited to ground No. 7 of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal.

(3.) We need refer only to the findings of the High Court. The injuries which had been sustained by the deceased had been inflicted by blunt weapons, i.e. lathies. According to the High Court, two blows had been inflicted on the head one on the back and one on the left ankle joint. It was not disputed trial the injuries had been inflicted on the deceased in the paddy field which was in the cultivating possession of the appellants and Jagmohan Ahir. The deceased along with his sons (P.Ws.2 and 3) was engaged in re-ploughing that paddy field when the appellants and Jagmohan are alleged to have caused the injuries to him by means of lathi blows. It was found that the appellants and Jagmohan had exceeded the right of private defence of property. It was further found that it was not possible to attribute any individual injuries to any of the individual assailants. The view of the High Court, however, was that the object of all the four persons including the appellants was the same namely to defend their property. In so doing the right of private defence had been exceeded by them all and, therefore, Section 34 was applicable.