IN RE: AYYANAR KONAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge of West Thajavur in Crl. Appeal No. 48 of 1969 modifying the convictions and sentences imposed upon the Petitioners by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mannargudi, and convicting the first accused of the offence under Sections 342 and 505 (Part II) I.P.C ., the second accused of the offence under Section 342 I. P. C, the third accused of the offences under Ss. 342, 323 and 506 (Part II) I. P. C, and each of the accused 5 to 7 of the offence under Section 342 I. P. C. and sentencing all the accused to pay differing sums of money by way of fine, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for varying terms.

(2.) P .W. 1 (Natarajan) is the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Aranthangi, who in October, 1967, was deputed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukkottai, to collect the land revenue arrears in Arasankulam Firka, because the arrears in that area had run into a huge figure. On 13th October, 1968, P.W. 1 went to Manavanallur village at 9.15 a.m. along with P. W. 3 (The Revenue Inspector of Arasankulam). P. W. 4 (the village Headman) P. W. 2, (a Peon) and the Talayari of that village. The party went from door to door for the purpose of collecting the land revenue arrears. The Village Munsif collected the amounts from those who paid the arrears and passed receipts to them. When the party went to the Cheri, the persons there failed to pay the arrears, and therefore, the Village Munsif distrained the movables belonging to them. At about 10.30 a.m. the party went to the house of the accused 2 and 1 father and son, and called upon them to pay the arrears. The accused 2 and 1 said that they did not have to pay the arrears and they could not pay any amount. Thereupon the Village Munsif said that he would have to distrain their articles in their house if they failed to pay the arrears. Then the Village Munsif directed Talayari Muthukaruppan to find out what articles were available for distraint and to bring a cart and bulls for transporting the distrained articles. The Talayari brought a pair of cart bulls and threw the distrained household articles out of the house. The Village Munsif wrote Form No. 2 and asked the accused 1 and 2 to receive a copy of the same. But the latter refused to receive it. Then the Village Munsif signed in Form No. 2 and asked the Talayari to affix a copy thereof to she door of the house of accused 1 and 2. After the Talayari pasted a copy of the door, the party went to the house of the third accused at about 10.45 a.m. The Village Munsif asked the third accused to pay the arrears, and on the third accused's refusal to receive Form No. 1 he attached one cycle, one transistor and a pair of cart bulls belonging to him. Then the party went to the house of the fourth accused at 11.30 a.m. and called upon the fourth accused to pay the arrears. When the Village Munsif tried to distrain the articles belonging to the fourth accused, the latter prevented him from doing so. Muthukaruppan, the Talayari, brought to big brass thavalais and other articles from inside the house of the fourth accused and placed them on the pial of the house. The Peon Govindaswami attempted to bring those articles to the place where the party was standing. At that juncture, the fourth accused said: "If you touch the vessels,, I will finish you". So saying he slapped Govindaswami on his cheek, pushed him and beat him on his back with hands. The third accused, who was there armed with a stick, aimed a blow at Govindaswami. Gavindaswami warded it off with his right forearm. Then the fourth accused said: "If you distrain my articles, I will finish you". All the accused who were in front of the fourth accused's house prevented the party from distraining any article belonging to the fourth accused. As the Village Munsif's Form No. 2 was being pasted on to the door of the fourth accused's house, the first accused took out a chappel from his foot and aimed it at P.W. 1; but the Revenue Inspector and others prevented the first accused from flinging it at P.W.1. As the situation became too hot, the party started going towards the house of Meerappa Pillai. But all the accused told them that they ought not to leave the village and forced them to go inside the Mariamman Koil at 12.15 in the noon. All the accused stood guard at the entrance to the temple. At that time, the fourth accused had an aruval in his hand, whereas accused 1 to 3, 5 and 7 had sticks. The party of P.W. 1 were thus wrongfully confined in the temple till about 5.45 P.M. The Village Munsif, however, escaped from the temple and reported the matter to the police. At about 5.45 P.M. the police came in a jeep and hearing the sound of the jeep all the accused ran away. A complaint was given as per Ex. P -1.

(3.) IT is now contended before me on behalf of the Petitioners that even assuming that the acts attributed to them are true, they have not committed any offence because they have acted in the exercise of their right of private defence. So far as the wrongful confinement of the party of P. W. 1 is concerned, it clearly amounts to an offence because it was committed, not when the movables of the accused were being wrongly distrained or removed, but after the removal had been averted and while P.W. 1's party, after abandoning their attempt to remove the articles, were proceeding to the house of Veerappa Pillai. As for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 (Part II) I.P.C. I shall examine if the right of private defence was available to the accused when they committed these offences.