STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MUNGA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the judgement of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu dated 20. 12. 1975 in sessions case No. 20 of 1975 whereby the accused-respondents Munga Ram alias Adram, Dalvir Singh, Ranvir Singh, Dhoop Singh, Mst. Chandrawati and Mst. Shanti were acquitted of the offences under Sections 148, 447, 302/149, 307/149 and 324 I. P. C. with which they were charged with.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that disputed field Khasra No. 127 measuring 17 bighas and 4 biswas is situated in Biru ki Dhani of village Lutana Sadasukh Tehsil Rajgarh Distt. Churu. According to prosecution, the disputed field belongs to complainant party Kishan Gopal, deceased,and his sons Amilal, Banwari & Shivdan and his other brothers. Accused Dhoop Singh, Ranvir Singh and Dalvir Singh are three real brothers and cousins of the complainant party. Accused Mst. Chandrawati is the wife of accused Ranvir Singh and Mst. Shanti is the wife of accused Dhoop Singh and accused Munga Ram is the father of accused Mst. Shanti and Mst. Chandrawati who are real sisters. THE occurrence took place on 21. 6. 1975 at about 6 A. M. According to prosecution, complainant-party had cultivated the field of Khasra No. 127 some days before the date of occurrence. At about 5. 30 A. M. on 21. 6. 75, Kishan Gopal, deceased, when he returned from call of nature to his home, informed his sons Shivdan Singh, Ramchander and Banwarilal that accused persons are overturning their fields and he alongwith Shivdan Singh went to the field. On reaching the field, Kishangopal, deceased, and Shivdan Singh saw the six accused persons in the field. THEre, Dhoop Singh and Ranvir Singh caused injuries on the head of Kishangopal and he fell down and when Shivdan Singh intervened, he was also beaten by the six accused persons. In the meanwhile, Amilal, another son of Kishangopal, also reached the scene of the occurrence and he was also beaten by Mst. Shanti. All the three injured were taken to hospital at about 7. 30 A. M. and attended to by Doctor S. N. Vyas. As a result of injuries, received during the incident, Kishangopal later on died at the hospital.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the opinion that both the contentions, raised by the learned public prosecutor appearing for the State, do not merit acceptance. There has been voluminous documentary evidence on record in the form of entries in the revenue records in support of the fact that accused persons are holders of 13 bighas and 11 biswas of land in Khasra No. 127 and it is in that land that the alleged incident has taken place. The whole Khasra No. 127 is 17 bighas 4 biswas. Out of this, in 3 bighas and 13 biswas, there are well, kund etc. which is not cultivable and which fell to the share of the complainant party and remaining 13 bighas and 11 biswas which is worth cultivation, fell to the share of the accused party. The fact that complainant party had only 3 bighas and 13 biswas of land in Khasra No. 127 is admitted by PW 4 Amilal, apart from the fact that the division of ownership of the said Khasra in aforesaid ratio is amply proved on material in the form of revenue record available on the file, in the form of copies of mutation Ex. D. 6 and Ex. D. 7, Khasra Girdawari Ex. D. 8 and Jamabandi Ex. D. 9. Infact, it was even conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor in the trial that so far as the disputed land measuring 13 bighas and 11 biswas is concerned the revenue record is in favour of the accused persons. It may also be noticed that even the prosecution case does not claim that complainant party was owning the land in dispute or was cultivating the land in its own right. The prosecution case is that the complainant was sowing the farm with the consent of the accused parly. Obviously, if the complainant party was sowing the farm with the consent of the accused party, there could have been no cause of action between the two. It also does not stand to reason that when parties had already divided their respective shares and were in possession of the respective shares, where did the occasion arise for ploughing the field of the accused persons by the complainant party with their consent. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge, Churu has rightly appreciated the evidence and arrived at the finding that the accused party was in possession of the disputed field where the occurrence has taken place and they had a right of private defence to guard their possession against the complainant.