Citation: AIR1999SC1083
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Crl.A. No. 167 of 1999 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3645 of 1998)
Decided On: 09.02.1999
Appellants:Jai Bhagwan and others
V
Respondent: State of Haryana
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Venkataswami and S. S. M. Quadri, JJ.
Subject: Criminal
Case Note:
Criminal - private defence - Sections 34, 99, 103, 104 and 441 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 103 is applicable if there is robbery or house breaking by night or
mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel used as human dwelling or
there is theft causing apprehension that death may be caused by such act - Section
104 is applicable when there is any attempt to commit theft or mischief or trespass - it
is clear from facts of present case that action of deceased and his sons coming to
land in possession of accused could only amount to criminal trespass within Section
441.
ORDER
Quadri, J.
1. Leave is granted limited to the question of nature of offence committed by the
appellants and quantum of sentence therefore.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are as follows.
3. The gravamen of the charge against appellants Nos. 1 and 3, Jai Bhagwan (A-l)
and Sushil [A-3], is that they caused the death, by murderous assault, of their uncle
Prithvi (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and against appellant No. 2, Anil [A-
2], is that he attempted to murder, Wazir Singh [PW-6] on January 21, 1992 at about
7.30 P.M. The dispute between the accused group on one hand and the deceased
and his sons on the other which resulted in this unfortunate event relates to four killas
of land. The land was owned by the accused and was so declared by the decree of
the Civil court in Suit No. 676 of 1984 dated July 17, 1984. The deceased and his
brother, Hawa Singh, challenged the validity of the said decree in Civil Suit No. 692
of 1984 which was dismissed by the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Bhiwani vide
judgment, Exhibit DX/4 [Decree Sheet, Exhibit DX/5]. There is record [Exh.DX/6] to
show that the accused were put in possession pursuant to partition of the land by the
Assistant Collector and the warrant of possession, though the deceased and his sons
were found to have been in possession and cultivation of the said land for the last
thirty years. The High Court recorded that the occurrence took place in the land in
possession of the appellants. The deceased along with his son Wazir Singh (PW-6),
his daughter-in-law, Smt. Krishna (PW-8) and his daughter Smt. Chander (PW-5)
went to the land to irrigate the same and told A-1 that he would have the turn of water
and irrigate the land and that after settlement of the dispute, A-1 could do it. This was
objected to by A-1 who stated that he would settle the matter right then. A-1, then,
started hurling abuses at the deceased and during the altercation, Smt. Parwari,
mother of A-1, exhorted him to give a blow on the vertex to bring them to senses and
under control. Then A-1 who was armed with ballam dealt a blow with it on the head
of the deceased. A-3 dealt a blow with churra (knife) on the face of the deceased.
Thereafter, the deceased fell down. While he was lying down, A-2 dealt a blow with
goudas and the others caused several injuries on his body. In the process, PW-5,
PW-8 and PW-6 were also injured. A-2 was responsible for injuries on PW-6. They
were taken by Hawa Singh (PW-11) to hospital where they were examined by
doctors and Prithvi (deceased) was declared dead. On considering the evidence of
the eye-witnesses, PWs. 5, 6 and 8, medical evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 7 and post-
mortem report Exh.P.A, the trial court negatived the plea of self-defence, found A-1
and A-3 guilty of offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine,
to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year and convicted A-2 under
Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of seven years and to
pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year. It was further directed that out of the fine amount, Rs.
1,000/- be paid to PW-6, injured witness, and the balance of the amount be paid to
be widow of the deceased. The appellants preferred appeal against their conviction
and sentence in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court set aside the
conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC and convicted A1 and A3 under
Section 304, Part-1 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced them to seven year's
rigorous imprisonment and altered the conviction of A2 to one under Section 326 IPC
and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years; sentence of fine was,
however, confirmed by allowing their appeal on January 28, 1998. From that
judgment of the High Court this appeal arose.
4. Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that
the appellants were acting in self-defence of their property so they should have been
acquitted of the offences charged and that in any event A-l and A-3 could have been
convicted under Section 304 Part-II for their individual overt acts as Section 34 could
have no application to this case and that A-2 could not have been convicted under
Section 326 IPC. Ms. Shikha Ray Pabbi, learned Counsel appearing for the State of
Haryana, argued that the accused were not in possession of the land in dispute and
that the deceased and his sons had been in possession for more than thirty years
and the trial court recorded the finding that the accused were not in possession of the
land; their plea of right of private defence was not accepted by the trial court; on the
facts found they were rightly convicted by the High Court under Section 304, IPC.
5. The plea of the appellants is one of self-defence of property. Sections 103 and
104 IPC recognise the right of private defence of property. They read as under :
103. When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death -
The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions
mentioned in Section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm
to the wrong-doer, if the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to
commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, be an offence of any of the
descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely :
First - Robbery;
Secondly - House-breaking by night;
Thirdly - Mischief by fire committed on any building tent or
vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human
dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property;
Fourthly - Theft, mischief or house-trespass, under such
circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that
death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if such right of
private defence is not exercised.
104. When such right extends to causing any harm other than death - If
the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which,
occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, be theft, mischief,
or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last
preceding section, that right does not extend to the voluntary causing of
death, but does not extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in
Section 99, to the voluntary causing to the wrong-doer of any harm other
than death.
Where Section 103 is attracted, the right of private defence of property will extend to
voluntary causing of death or of causing any other harm to the wrong-doer, subject to
the provisions of Section 99 IPC; and the offences committing of which or the attempt
to commit which will justify exercise of the right of private defence of the property are
as follows : (1) Robbery; (2) House-breaking by night; (3) Mischief by fire committed
on any building tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human
dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property;
(4) Theft; mischief or house-trespass, under such circumstances as may reasonably
cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if such right
of private defence is not exercised. On the facts of this case, stated above, there is
no scope to invoke Section 103 IPC as none of the aforementioned offences were
committed or attempted to be committed by the deceased and his relations.
6. Section 104, IPC will apply if the wrong-doer commits or attempts to commit any
of the following offences : (1) theft, (2) mischief or trespass not of the description
which is covered under Section 103, subject of course to restrictions mentioned in
Section 99 IPC; and in such a case the right of private defence of property would
extend only to causing harm other than death to him.
7. Form the facts, it is clear that the action of the deceased and his sons coming to
the land in possession of the accused group was to irrigate the land which, on the
facts of this case, could only amount to criminal trespass within the meaning of
Section 441 IPC. The right of the accused-appellants, therefore, extended only to
causing of harm other than death.
8. Regarding A-1 and A-3 it has been noticed that A-l gave a blow with ballam on the
head of the deceased and A-3 gave a blow on his face with knife.
9. Dr. S.C. Agarwal [PW-1], who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of
the deceased, found the following injuries:
1. There was a fracture of the right arm in the Middle and on dissection
subcutaneous haemotoma was present.
2. There was an incised wound of 2" x 1" and 0.8" deep on the right inter
space of thumb and index finger with cutting of the under lying tissues.
3. There was a superficial lacerated wound of size 8" x 6" on left elbow
posteriorly.
4. There was bleeding from right ear.
5. There was distortion and fracture of the left little finger at the proximal
phalanx. Subcutaneous haemotoma was present.
6. There was a purported wound with laceration of the size 1" x .6" and
perforating to the buckle mucous (month). It was horizontally placed on
the lower side of the right cheek 1/2 below and lateral to the angle of
mouth. There was one more minor stabbed wound of 0.4" x 0.2" and 0.5"
deep 1/2" below to the previous cheek injury. Blood clots were present on
dissection. There was fracture of the right side of the mandible and it was
in almost two pieces. Teeth were intact. There was also mild appreciable
defused swelling of indistinct colour and margins on the right side face,
cheek area extending up posterior ear area. On dissection, subcutaneous
haemotoma was present and right ear was bleeding.
7. There was a big lacerated wound of size 3.1/2" x 0.8" vertically placed
bone deep on the right parietal area of scalp 1" lateral to the mid skull of
parietal region was found of the size. 1.1/2" x 1" which was extending
linearly to downwards upto front to parietal suture on the right side,
subcutaneous haemotoma was present on dissection. On opening of the
cranial cavity, there was sub-dural haemotoma on the right side on
removal of brain matters, small amount of blood collection was found in
middle cranial fossa with fracture of the base of the skull (petrous part of
the temporal bone). All other organs were found healthy and pale. The
heart was empty in all chambers. The stomach contained good amount of
partially digested food material.
The post-mortem certificate, Exh. PA, was proved by him. He opined that death was
caused due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries on the head and face
and that injuries 6 and 7 could be caused by ballam, Exh. P6 and Gandasi, Exh. P7.
Injury No. 7 is attributable to A-1 and injury No. 6 is attributable to A-3. Both the
injuries are on vital parts of the body.
10. A-1 and A-3 on the land were armed with deadly weapons. On the exhortation
given by their mother, both of them, one after the other, murderously assaulted the
deceased with the weapons with which they were already armed. It was not a case of
free fight and it cannot be said that they did not intend to cause the injuries inflicted
by them. They intended to cause injuries and did inflict the said injuries which caused
the death of Prithvi, the deceased. Therefore, they are not entitled to protection of
Section 104, IPC. But for the fact that they exceeded the right of self-defence of
property under Section 104 IPC, the offence committed by them would have been
one under Section 302 IPC.
11. To apply Section 34, IPC apart from the fact that there should be two or
more accused, two factors must be established : (i) common intention and (ii)
participation of the accused in the commission of an offence. If common
intention is proved but no overt act is attributed to the individual accused,
Section 34 will be attracted as essentially it involves vicarious liability but if
participation of the accused in the crime is proved and common intention is
absent, Section 34 cannot be invoked. In every case it is not possible to have
direct evidence of common intention. It has to be inferred from the facts and
circumstances of each case.
12. From the above discussion, it follows that A-1 and A-3 have been rightly
convicted under Part-1 of Section 304/34, IPC by the High Court. However, having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, it would meet the ends
of justice if we reduce the sentence from seven years to five years and accordingly
we do so.
13. So far as A-2 is concerned, he has been convicted by the High Court under
Section 326 IPC. Since he is one of the co-owners and possessor of the land
and the offence committed by him is causing grievous hurt by dangerous
weapon he is protected as he did so in exercise of right of private defence of
property under Section 104, IPC, so he cannot be found guilty of offence under
Section 326 IPC. A-2 is, therefore, acquitted and is directed to be set free
forthwith unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.
14. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.
