BALMUKUND Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel Mr. R. L. Kohli for the appellants and learned counsel Mr. N. K. Agarwal for the respondent-State. Balmukud filed Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1974 against his conviction and. sentence for offences under S. 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for seven years respectively. Appellant Gunna alias Gur Narayan filed Criminal Appeal no. 62 of 1974 against his conviction for an offence under S. 307, indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Both these appeals were filed in the High court of Madhya Pradesh at jabalpur. There was also a third appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1974, by the other three accused who were tried at the same trial, but none of them has appealed to this court and, therefore, we are not concerned with them in this matter. Even though Balmukund and Gunna alias Gur Narayan preferred separate appeals in the High Court, they have filed a joint petition for special leave but as there were two separate appeals in the High court, the joint S. L. P. has been given two separate numbers.

(2.) This court by its Order dated 20/04/1981 issued notice to the respondent-State limited to the question of sentence. Special leave is accordingly limited to the question of sentence only.

(3.) The question of sentence assumes importance in this case-in view of the findings of the High court. The High court reached the conclusion in para 28 of its judgment that the scrutiny of the prosecution evidence probabilised the defence version that the field where the complainant party had started ploughing was in possession of the appellants and the quarrel arose because the complainant party would not desist from ploughing the field in spite of objections raised by the appellants. The High court further in categorical terms recorded a finding as to unauthorised visit of the complainant's party to the disputed field on the date of occurrence in the following words : "we are of the view that the appellant's party was in possession of the field and the complainant party was trespasser. " After having recorded the finding that the. appellants (accused) were in possession of the disputed field and that the complainant and his associates took the law into their hands, trespassed into the field of the appellants and tried to plough the same, the High court rightly reached the conclusion that there arises in favour of the appellants a right of private defence of property The High court in terms held accordingly and, in our opinion, rightly.