JUNJIYA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred on behalf of Junjiya, Baga, Harji and Surta, who stand convicted and sentenced as under by the judgment dated 14-4-1976 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_37_LAWS(RAJ)3_19811.html</FRM>

(2.) Breifiy stated the facts as alleged by the prosecution were these. The Held of Chatar Singh is situated on the western side of village Narta known as Bholiawala bera. His brother Bhopalsingh and servant Mukhiya lived in this field. On 23-6-197 5 'jawar'and other crops were standing in about 15 bighas of this field. At about 5 a. m. some 4 or 5 she camels entered this field and damaged the crop, Bhopal Singh and Mukhiya tried to catch them but they could catch only one she camel which was tied near the well. Chatar Singh also reached the field in the morning. Gajerki, the mother and Hariya the sister of appellant Junjiya came to (he field and requested for the release of the she camel. Chatar Singh replied that he would return the camel after showing the damage to 'Kamdar' and other prominent persons of the village. While returning, Chatar Singh near his machine house heard some cries of his servant Mukhiya. He turned back and saw that Baga gave a lathi blow on the back of Bhopal Singh, who fell down on the ground. Thereafter Jonjiva caused 3-4 blows by an axe on the head of Bhopal Singh. Surta also gave a lathi blow to Bhopal Singh. While Chatar Singh was coming to the rescue of his brother, Surta gave a lathi blow to his temporal region. Harji caused another lathi blow on his right hand. Mukhiya, Bhanwar Singh and Bhoopsingh intervene and the appellants returned taking away the she camel along with them. Bhopal Singh was taken to and admitted, in the hospital at Bhinmal. Chatar Singh then on the same day lodged a verbal complaint of the incident in police station Bhinmal. A case was registered and usual investigation including the medical examination of the injured was begun and completed. After completing the investigation the appellants were challaned under sections 307, 306, 325 etc. in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal The I case was duly committed, The trial court believed the evidence of Chutar Singh P.W. 1, Bhopal Singh P. W. 2 and Mukhiya P. W. 5 and convicted and sentenced the I appellants in the manner indicated above.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants had the right of private defence of properly. Bhopal Singh and Chatar Singh could not hare detained the she B camel. At the best, they could take it to the cattle pond. I have considered the argument carefully. In my opinion, this argument has no force. Sec. 10 of the Cattle Trespass Act reads as under :~