VISUAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in these two appeals were accused 1,2 and 3 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 39/91. There were 22 accused apart from 4 persons who had absconded. Some were convicted by the Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 1-10-1993. On appeals, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of these three appellants with some modification and acquitted the rest.

(2.) On 25-6-1990 the accused and the 4 absconding persons were said to be cultivating a land known as 'Kothotiya Har'. Though pattas had been issued in favour of some of the accused and the land was registered in their name, there were disputes relating to the same which were pending before the Revenue Authorities. The rival claimants claimed to be in possession of the land and were protesting against the claim of the accused and resisting the attempts of the accused to plough the land. On the aforesaid date the occurrence took place between the two groups resulting in the death of 4 persons of the complainant's group. The appellants and the other accused were charged with offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 307/149, I.P.C. Two of them were also charged for having hatched a criminal conspiracy for committing the offences. The Sessions Judge acquitted 9 accused including those charged with criminal conspiracy and convicted the remaining 13 and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment including sentence of death awarded against the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 1994. The High Court acquitted 10 more persons and confirmed the conviction and sentence of three of them. So far as the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 1994 are concerned the High Court converted the sentence of death to life imprisonment and also set aside the conviction under Section 147, I.P.C.

(3.) In these appeals learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the contentions put forward before the Courts below. According to learned counsel the appellants were only exercising the right of self-defence and the facts of the case as established would show that it was the other party who fired in the first instance and the appellants had necessarily to defend themselves by using weapons. It is contended that both Courts having found against the case of the prosecution that there was a conspiracy for the commission of offence on the previous night, and the case that there was an attempt to compromise the land dispute between the parties ought to have upheld the defence of the appellants. According to learned counsel the following facts are relevant and should be given due weight.