HAZARA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE four appellants arc convicted under Sections 325, 324 and 323, read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to various terms of rigorcfus imprisonment by the Additional Sesn sjons Judge, Hosbiarpur. This is an appeal preferred by them.

(2.) HAZARA Singh appellant is the brother of Joginder Singh the injured. Resbam singh, another injured complainant is the son of Joginder Singh. The other three appellants are brothers, they are collaterals of Hazara Singh. It appears that somewhere in the year 1947 Hazara Singh appellant who is issueless made a gift of his property in favour of Resham Singh. Soon after, he repudiated the gift and the mutation in respect of it was rejected on 80-4-1950. Resham Singh and his father Jogindar Singh claimed that, in spite of the gift having been repudiated and mutation refused, they continued in possession of the land including Khasra No. 470 to which the present dispute relates. The prosecution case is that the complainants had sown bajra crop in field No, 470 in Kharif 1957 and that in the early morning of 11-9-1957, the four appellants started ploughing the land and uprooting the crop. This gave rise to a fight between the parties which resulted in injuries to Jogindar Singh and Resham Singh on the one side and Hazara Singh and Ujagar Singh appellants on the other. Number of injuries were caused to each of them. The parties approached the police and lodged their respective reports. The one from the side of the complainants was lodged at 7-40 A. M. and the other a little later on 11-9-1957. Both the parties were sent up for trial under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. While the accused in the cross-case were acquitted, the present resulted in their conviction as stated already.

(3.) THE fight between the parties and the result thereof stand admitted; each of them claimed the right of private defence of property as well as person. The learned trial Judge was of opinion that the entire land, ever since the gift till Kharif 1957, was in possession of Hazara Singh appellant, only a couple of months prior to the occurrence Resham Singh had sown barja crop in field No. 470. and that the appellants had no right to uproot the crop and plough the field as they did on 119-1957. It was consequently held : "in this state of affairs, even if Resham Singh P. W. on seeing the accused ploughing the land went away to his house and picked up a dang and brought his father Jogindar Singh, armed with atakwa and stopped the accused from further ploughing the land and caused injuries to them to turn them out, he was fully justified to do that according to law. "