GAIND SINGH Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision, the applicant has challenged legality & propriety of the judgment dated 26.4.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, in Criminal Appeal No. 11/98, affirming the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 2.12.1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara, in Criminal Case No. 24/89, whereby and where under the Judicial Magistrate First Class after holding the applicant and other deceased accused persons guilty for commission of criminal trespass, causing grievous injuries to Mekdu convicted applicant Sita Ram under Section 447/34 and 325/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo fine of Rs. 500/- and R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month for each default. During pendency of the revision, applicant No. 1 Gaind Singh and applicant No. 3 Jaipali died and revision filed against them is abated.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned, judgment of the trial Court and records of the Courts below.

(3.) At the outset, learned counsel for applicant No. 2 submits that there was serious land dispute between the present applicant along with his family members, they were in possession over the property, they have shown the crop and at the time of harvesting the crop, the complainant party went to field for harvesting and dispute took place, thereafter with a view to save the property the applicant and other persons have used criminal force in exercise of their private defence of person and property. The present applicant has not exceeded right of private defence of person and property, the present applicant has not caused any injury to Mekdu or any person in sharing common intention and persons caused injuries to the complainant party are personally responsible for their act attributed. Learned counsel further submits that evidence of alleged complainant/injured Mekdu (PW-7) does not inspire confidence and trustworthy, his evidence is full of omission, contradiction and exaggeration. As per his evidence, even he does not know that who are owners of the fields and fields are recorded in whose names. Sale deed of most of the property has been executed in the name of wife of deceased accused Gaind Singh and mother of the present applicant, therefore, the present applicant was authorized to cultivate the field, to harvest the crop and to save the property, even by using force required. Learned counsel also submits that by convicting and sentencing the applicant both the Courts below have committed illegality.