RAM RATTAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a peculiar feature of our criminal law that where a trespasser has succeeded in taking recent wrongful possession of the property vested in the public for common enjoyment, the members of the village or the real owner are not entitled in law to throw out the trespasser but have to take recourse to the legal remedies available, and if any member of the public tries to secure public property from the possession of the trespasser he is normally visited with the onerous penalty of law. This is what appears to have happened in this appeal by special leave in which the appellants appear to have got themselves involved in an armed conflict with the prosecution party resulting in the death of the deceased, injuries to some of the prosecution witnesses and injuries to three of the accused themselves.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that on July 18, 1966 at about 7-30 to 8-00 in the morning when Ram Khelawan and his companions were removing weeds from the paddy crop sown by them in the field which included a portion of the Chak Road which had recently been encroached by the complainant's party and amalgamated with their fields, Ram Ratan and Ram Samujh armed with lathis and Din Bandhu and Ram Sajiwan carrying a ballam and Biroo respectively entered the field of Ram Khelawan with their bullocks and insisted on passing through the field along with their bullocks, which according to them was a public road. The complainants protested against the highhanded action of the party of the accused on which Ram Ratan exhorted his companions to assault the deceased Murli as a consequence of which Ram Sajiwan assaulted Murli in the abdomen with his Biroo as a result of which Murli sustained serious injuries and fell down in the field and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. The other members of the complainant's party, namely, Ram Khelawan, Manohar, Sarabjit, Mewa Lal and Satrohen were also assaulted by Ram Ratan and his party. Soon after the occurrence Rameshwar Pathak, a police officer, who happened to be present at the spot recorded the statement of P. W. 1 Ram Khelwan which was treated as the F.I.R. and after conducting the usual investigation submitted a charge-sheet against all the accused persons who were put on trial before the Sessions Judge, Barabanki. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Din Bandhu and convicted the appellant Ram Sajiwan under Section 302, I.P.C. Ram Ratan and Ram Samujh were convicted under Section 326/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment. Three appellants Ram Ratan, Ram Sajiwan and Ram Samujh were further convicted under Section 447, I.P.C. to three months rigorous imprisonment and under Sections 324/34, I.P.C. to two years rigorous imprisonment under each of the two counts, and under Sections 323/34, I.P.C. to six months rigorous imprisonment and ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The accused persons filed an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad which was also dismissed and thereafter they obtained special leave of this Court and hence this appeal before us.

(3.) The defence of the accused was that shortly before the occurrence proceedings for consolidation of holdings had taken place in the village as a result of which the Revenue Authorities provided a Chak Road which passed through plot Nos. 853, 854, 864, 823 and 887. This Chak Road was meant to be a public road to enable the residents of the village to pass through this road with their cattle. This road happened to be adjacent to the field of Ram Khelawan P. W. 1 and he took undue advantage of the proximity of the road and encroached upon the same and amalgamated it with his cultivable field. The accused persons wanted to assert their lawful right over the Chak Road and it was the prosecution party which was the aggressor and started assaulting the accused as a result of which three persons on the side of the accused received serious injuries. The accused, therefore, assaulted the deceased in self-defence. Even otherwise, the accused pleaded innocence.