KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Karnail Singh against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, dated 5th March, 1976, by which the appellant was convicted under section 307, I. P. C. and Sec 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3| years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ , in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on the first count and on the second to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE incident that led to the prosecution of the appellant may be briefly described as follow: On 14th December, 1974, Mangal Singh's wife Inder Kaur purchased agricultural land measuring 8 Bighas in all situated in Chak No. MKS 20 of village Manaksar, Tehsil Sangaria, District Sri Ganganagar, for a sum of Rs. 16000/-, from Jagir Singh son of Asha by caste Aral vide registered sale-deed of the same date and got possession over it. After the land was purchased, Inder Kaur's husband Mangal Singh and his son Jeet Singh started cultivating it. On 26th February, 1975, at about 8 or 9 a. m. Jeet Singh accompanied by his younger brother Balbir and Sardara Teli went to his land for digging a water-channel. Sardara Teli was employed by Jeet Singh to dig the water-channel. While he was digging it, Karnail Singh appellant came out of his field and asked Jeet Singh and his companions to go out of the land. Karnail Singh had a double-barrel gun with him at that time. He began to hurl abuses upon Jeet Singh and his brother Balbir. Jeet Singh asked him not to utter abuses. THEreupon, Karnail Singh fired a shot from his gun, the ballets of which hit Jeet Singh on his chest. As a result of the shot, Jeet Singh fell down and became unconscious THE appellant ran away from there. Balbir and Sardara lifted-up Jeet Singh and took him to Sangaria Hospital in a tractor. When they were taking the injured to the hospital, they met Mangal Singh in the way. Mangal Singh also accompanied them to the hospital. At Sangaria Hospital Jeet Singh was medically examined as to his injuries. THEreafter, he was removed to Hospital at Ganganagar, where his injuries were X rayed and found grievous. A report of this incident was lodgeo by Sardara with the police at police station, Sangaria, the very day in the noon. THE police registered a criminal case under sections 307, I. P. C. and 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant on the basis of the verbal report filed by Sardara and made the usual investigation. Rameshwar Lal, A. S. I. reached the place of occurrence, inspected the site, prepared a site-plan and an inspection memo, At the time of the site-inspection, he noticed one missed cartridge of 12 bore gun and some wads lying at the spot. He took the cartridge and the wads into his possession vide memo of recoveries Exs. P. 4 and P. 5 respectively. THEn he arrested Karnail Singh and seized one licensed double barrel 12 bore gun from his possession vide memo of seizure Ex. P.

(3.) NOW it has to be seen whether there was sufficient time for the appellant to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities and whether the appellant, while exercising the right of private defence of property, had inflicated more harm than was necessary for the purpose of his self-defence. The prosecution evidence itself reveals that Jeet Singh had entered the land along with his brother and the employee and was getting water channel dug therein by his servant Sardara. The injured and his party had entered the land, which was in possession of the appellant, with the avowed object of taking the land into their actual possession after dispossessing the appellant. The appellant, who was in possession of the land, was entitled to resist by force the trespass made on his property. There was no time left for him to have recourse to the public authorities for protection. If the appellant had taken recourse to the public authorities for protection, the avowed object of Jeet Singh and his companions would have been fulfilled. It is not the intention of law that a person who is being deprived of his property, of which he is in possession, should tacitly submit to the deprivation without exercising his right of private defence.