JHARIA NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 , Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE prosecution case may be stated in short. One Raya (a lady) had a son Matal (the deceased) and 2 delighters Nandi and Janai. Lakhan (p.w. 7) is the son of the deceased. Janai has 2 sons Lachhu and Bhaju. Jharia (the accused) is the brother's son of Nangu, hushalld of Janai. The disputed land originally belonged to Raya and Matal. Matal went to work as a labourer at Gorumahisani. Raya managed to cultivate the disputed land with the help of p.w. 7. Subsequently, p.w. 7 also went to Gorumahisani for work. The prosecution case is; that the deceased and p.w. 7 were in possession of the disputed land and sowed paddy in the year of occurrence. On 23 -11 -1965 at about 9 A.M. the deceased was sitting on the ridge of the field and was getting the crop cut through p.ws. 3, 4, 6 and 7. The accused came near the deceased and told him that the disputed land was not his father's land and he should not cut the crop thereform. Suddenly he gave a push to the deceased who fell down on the paddy field. Thereafter he brought out a knife from his pocket and indiscriminately assaulted the deceased, as a result of which the latter died instantaneously.

(3.) THE only question for consideration is whether the accused had any right of private defence of person or property. So far as the possession of the disputed land is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has found, after thorough discussion, that the accused was in possession of the disputed land in the year of occurrence, and that he had cultivated and sown paddy on the disputed land along with Lachhu and Bhaju. On the aforesaid finding, which is not challenged, conclusion is is resistible that that the accused party was entitled to the crop. Clearly the deceased committed an offence of theft by cutting away the paddy with the help of p.ws. 3, 4, 6 and 7.