PENUMETSA THIRUMALRAJU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The evidence shows that the Bodi was irrigating the lands of 1st accused and that at least from 1901 the lands of the opposite party were not irrigated by it. The Sessions Judge finds that the spout was only capable of irrigating two acres, which is the extent of field No. 418 belonging to 1st accused. The Deputy Magistrate in the counter-case finds that the Kapua went to the field of the accused in the present case with a spear and sticks to enforce their right and repair the Bodi and ready to repel by force any obstruction to their interfering with the Bodi.

(2.) I have little doubt that the accused had the right to prevent the Kapus from entering upon their fields and interfering with the Bodi on it. It is difficult to see how they lost the right of private defence because they did not send word to the Police Station six miles off. By the time a person could have gone there and returned with Police help, the Kapus would have trespassed on the land of the 1st accused and gained all they would. The 1st accused and those on the land were justified in getting help and resisting the trespass attempted by the Kapus.

(3.) The only question is whether the accused or any of them exceeded their right of private defence. In this connection I may point out that persons exercising their right are not members of an unlawful assembly by repelling attacks made on them or by exceeding the right of private defence See Knnja Bhuniya v. Emperor 15 Ind. Cas. 481 : 39 C. 896 : 16 C.W.N. 1053 : 13 Cr.L.J. 481. If any person exceeds his right of private defence he will be individually liable for any injury caused.