AHER KARNA RUKHAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order of the Sessions Judge, Central Saurashtra Division, confirming in appeal the applicant's conviction under "8. 324, I. P C. and sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE facts as found by the Sessions Judge are as follows:

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge, while holding that the complainant and his party had gone there to prevent sowing operations, made a distinction between the cases of Kunver and Chana on the ground that Kunver used force while Chana did not. and therefore in the case of Chana the applicant could not claim his right of private defence of property. We are unable to understand how the distinction can be made. The learned Sessions Judge's finding about possession by the applicant is veity clear. After the Mamlatdar's order the complainant and his party had no excuse to disturb the applicant's possession and their entry into the field could not be said to be in the bona fide exercise of their right of property. They had entered the field with the intention of preventing the applicant from carrying out his lawful operations and therefore every one of them was clearly guilty of criminal trespass. So long as that trespass continued the applicant had a perfect right to eject every one of them irrespective of whether force was used by any of them. His right was not subject to the condition that he should first request them to leave the field. Any such request would have been useless in view of what Kunver did and in view of the fact that the complainants were not satisfied with the Mamlatdar's ruling and took the law in their own hands. It appears to us therefore that even though Chana and other male members of the party did not use actual force against the applicant, his right to eject them by force was in no way affected thereby and he could use force against every one of them to the same extent as against Kunver. They had committed a criminal trespass and that trespass was continuing so long as they remained on land and his right to eject them by force continued so long as they remained on the field. We therefore hold that the applicant had the right to use force against Chana in the exercise of his right of private defence.