NANTHAN Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Madras confirming the sentence of death passed on the appellant.

(2.) The wife of P.W. 10. Hussain Khan, had some lands which the appellant and his father had been cultivating for some years. They fell into arrears in respect of the lease amount due to the landlady. It was alleged that the appellant and his father voluntarily surrendered the land on 16-2-69 and on the same day a lease was executed in favour of P.W. 3. The prosecution case was that on 5-1-70 when P. Ws. 1 to 5 went to harvest the second crop raised by P.W. 3, the appellant and others came and attacked the persons who were harvesting the crop which resulted in the death of one Velayudhan. The contention on behalf of the appellant and others was that they had never surrendered the possession of the land, that they had themselves raised the crop and the landlord was trying to evict them with the help of P. Ws. 1 to 5 and when P. Ws. 1-5 tried to harvest the crop and the appellant and others objected to it these prosecution witnesses joined together and beat up the appellant and others. Both the Courts below examined the question of the possession of the land at great length and came to the conclusion that page No. W. 3 was in possession of land and had cultivated the crop and that the appellant's party were the aggressors.

(3.) The question as to who was in possession of the land assumes considerable importance in the circumstances of the case. The special leave has been granted limited to the question regarding the nature of the offence, if any, of which the appellants could be convicted. If the finding of the Courts below that page No. W. 3 was in possession should be upheld then it is obvious that the appellant will have nothing to say in his favour. If on the other hand it is held that he had not surrendered the possession of the land and did continue to be in possession and raised the crop and the prosecution party had tried forcibly to harvest the crop, then the question of the appellant's party's right of private defence would arise. In that case the nature of the offence committed by the appellant would be different.