KALU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Sri M. K. Tripathi, holding brief of Sri S. D. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. at length. The impugned judgment and order passed by Addl. Ses sions Judge, Saharanpur, dated 9-2-1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1982 and the judgment passed by C. J. M. Saharanpur in case No. 1740 of 1982 dated 29-3-1982 have been carefully perused. The learned Appel late Judge has specifically recorded a find ing in the impugned judgment that the ac cused- appellants were in possession of the alleged P. O. land and the relevant cane crop was grown by the accused-appellants. But the learned Appellate Judge has observed that the appellants have no right of private defence to the property at the relevant time when they attacked the prosecution party and caused serious injuries. The learned Counsel for the revisionists has stressed the point that the revisionists who were accused in this case had no criminal intention be cause they have gone to protect their property. This point has been discussed in detail by the trial Judge as well as by appel late Judge. This Court is in agreement with the reasons given by both the court below that the accused persons had no right of private defence to assault the prosecution party at the relevant time. Accordingly the conviction of the revisionists under Sections 147, 323/149, 325/149 I. P. C. is con firmed.

(2.) THE learned Counsel then argues on the quantum of sentence awarded to the revisionist in this case. He points out that the revisionists have suffered a lot during long pendency of this criminal revision which has become about 13 years old. Fur ther he has pointed out that the revisionists have remained in jail custody for more than a week after dismissal of their appeal. It has been argued that in the nature of dispute between the parties a suitable amount of compensation if paid to the four injured persons will satisfy the interest of justice. In this background the learned Counsel has prayed that a suitable amount of fine may be imposed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment should be modified and reduced to the period already undergone. THE learned A. G. A. has no objection.