LEELARAM @ SUKHVIR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unfortunate case in which two persons from the complainant side and one from the accused side appear to have lost their lives over a land dispute. The prime questions that have come up for our consideration in the instant appeals are as to in what manner a person, who faces imminent peril of life and limb of himself or another should act ? Is he expected to weigh in golden scales 'the precise force' needed to repel the danger ?

(2.) ALL the thirteen appellants were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Khetri (Distt. Jhunjhunu) in sessions case No. 32/1994 for having committed murder of Gheesa, and Rohtas. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced as under -

(3.) MR . Jagdeep Dhankar, learned Senior Advocate assailing the findings of the learned trial Judge, canvassed that the situation bearing on the land in question has not been properly appreciated in the impugned judgment. The possession of the accused party over the land was lawful and settled. It is revealed from Girdawaris Ex.D-15, Ex.D.17 and Ex.D.18 that the land in dispute was under cultivation of appellant Rameshwar. There was no injunction against accused Rameshwar in respect of the aforementioned land from any court. In such a situation the appellant had settled a right over the land and no offence could be made out against them if they act to protect their right. The other party if aggrieved by the action of the appellants ought to have taken recourse to the assistance from authorities in terms of Section 99 Cr.P.C. rather than to take law in their own hands. The court below has not appreciated the injuries sustained by Birbal. The prosecution has failed to explain the injuries by Birbal and the story of prosecution has become doubtful. The prosecution version as regards the death of Birbal on account of crushed by truck tyres, is further falsified by site plan Ex.P.15. It will be seen from the site plan Ex.P.15 that near the dead body of Birbal there were no signs of movement of a truck. Analysis of the injuries of deceased Birbal would lead to the conclusion that Birbal suffered injuries not from the truck tyre as asserted by the prosecution, but on account of belabouring at the hands of complainant party as held out by the defence. Birbal suffered injuries at the hands of complainant party and only thereafter firing took place and the accused party was fully justified in acting in defence of its person and property. The court below has also not properly appreciated the contention of defence that the injuries sustained by Gheesa and Rohtas did not indicate any intention to kill. Both of them suffered fire arm injuries on non- vital parts. As the appellants acted in their right of private defence they could not have been convicted.