SHIVNARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal of Shivnarain Singh and Lal Khan is directed against the judgment dated 27th of June, 1970, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, convicting both the appellants Under Sections 447 and 323 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE incident in this case had taken place on 23rd of October, 1966 at the well Serawa situated in the boundaries of village Akdara. There is long drawn dispute between the parties about the ownership of this well and the land attached to the well bearing Khasra Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23. The Jagirdars of the village claimed that the aforesaid land belonged to them whereas the cultivators asserted their right as Khatedara in the land denying any share to the Jagirdars. It is since 1948 that the dispute between the parties started but ultimately on 31st of January, 1966 the Settlement Officer declared 2/6th share in favour of the Jagirdars. Appellant Shivnarain Singh represents his wife Mst. Suakanwar in whose favour 1/3rd share, in the disputed land was transfered by her father. It is alleged that on 23rd of October, 1966, Shiv Narain Singh in the company of Lal Khan and Wali Mohammed went to exercise the right of possession of 1/3rd share in the land belonging to his wife and it was in these circumstances that fight started between the party of Shivnarain Singh and the complainant party. It may be mentioned here that during this incident Wali Mohammed lost his life. Cross cases started, but the complainant party was acquitted of the charge of murder of Wali Mohammed while the appellants were convicted for offences Under Sections 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. Shivnarain Singh was fined Rs. 500/ - for an offence Under Section 447 and Rs. 200/ - Under Section 323 Indian Penal Code whereas Lalkhan was fined Rs. 100/ - each Under Sections 447 and 323.

(3.) AS regards the conviction of the accused -appellants Under Section 323 Indian Penal Code, it is urged by learned Counsel for the appellants that they inflicted injuries on the members of the opposite side in the exercise of the right of private defence but this right is not borne out from the record. It is true that one of the members of Shivnarain Singh's party lost his life during this incident but the members of the complainant party, who were prosecuted for the murder of Wali Mohammed have been acquitted by a competent court and, therefore, it is difficult for this Court now at this stage to accept the contention of learned Counsel for the appellants that the appellants used force in the exercise of their right of private defence. An aggressor cannot claim any right of private defence and, therefore, I find it difficult to accept this contention of learned Counsel for the appellants.