Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from a land dispute over property known as 'Kothotiya Har' in Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were accused 1, 2 and 3 in Sessions Case No. 39/01 before the Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, along with 22 other accused and four absconding persons. On 25.6.1990, the accused and the absconding persons were said to be cultivating the land. Although pattas had been issued in favour of some of the accused and the land was registered in their name, disputes relating to the same were pending before the Revenue Authorities. The rival claimants claimed to be in possession of the land and were protesting against the claim of the accused and resisting attempts to plough the land. On that date, an occurrence took place between the two groups resulting in the death of four persons of the complainant group. The appellants and the other accused were charged with offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Two of them were also charged for having hatched a criminal conspiracy. The Sessions Judge acquitted 9 accused including those charged with criminal conspiracy and convicted the remaining 13 and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment including sentence of death awarded against the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 1994. The High Court acquitted 10 more persons and confirmed the conviction and sentence of three of them. So far as the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 1994 are concerned, the High Court converted the sentence of death to life imprisonment and also set aside the conviction under Section 147 IPC. In the Supreme Court, the appellants reiterated the contentions put forward before the courts below, primarily claiming the right of self-defence. They argued that the land had been registered in the revenue records in their names giving rise to a presumption of possession, that the other party had lethal weapons and fired first, and that empty cartridges near the bodies proved the deceased had first used firearms. The Court rejected these contentions. It held that revenue entries only created a rebuttable presumption, which was rebutted by evidence, and that even if possession was with the appellants, they could not use firearms to cause death to persons merely attempting to trespass. The High Court had found that there was no evidence that the deceased were armed or fired first, and that the 'empty cartridges' were only plastic tiklis. The most important aspect noted was that none of the members of the accused party sustained any injury whatsoever, indicating they were aggressors. The Supreme Court found no error in the appreciation of evidence by the High Court and dismissed both appeals, confirming the judgment and sentences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Right of Private Defence - Rebuttable Presumption of Possession - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149; Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1939, Section 117 - The appellants claimed that revenue entries in their favour conferred possession and therefore the deceased party were trespassers, justifying use of force in self-defence. The Court held that revenue entries only created a rebuttable presumption of possession, which was rebutted by evidence, and in any event possession did not justify use of firearms to cause death. Held that the High Court's finding on possession and rejection of self-defence was correct. B) Criminal Law - Aggression and Common Object - Absence of Injuries on Accused - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 - The appellants argued that empty cartridges near the dead bodies proved the deceased fired first. The Court affirmed the High Court's finding that no empty cartridges were found but only plastic tiklis, that there was no evidence the deceased were armed or fired first, and that the most important fact was that no member of the accused party sustained any injury. Held that these facts established the accused were the aggressors and not entitled to private defence. C) Criminal Law - Evidentiary Presumptions - Statutory Presumption of Possession - Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1939, Section 117 - The statutory presumption under Section 117 was rebutted by the evidence of P.W. 23 and others who claimed possession of the disputed land in pending revenue proceedings. The Court noted that the entry in the revenue record was not conclusive and was subject to challenge. Held that the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence and rebutted the presumption.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants acted in exercise of right of self-defence, or were aggressors liable for murder and attempt to murder; whether revenue entries established possession in their favour and whether deceased party fired first; whether statutory presumption under Section 117 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1939 was rebutted; whether the concurrent factual findings by courts below warranted interference.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed both criminal appeals and confirmed the judgment of the High Court and the sentences awarded by the High Court.
Law Points
- Right of private defence not available when accused are aggressors
- revenue entry creates rebuttable presumption of possession
- use of lethal force not justified against mere trespass
- absence of injuries on accused party negates self-defence claim
- concurrent findings of lower courts on fact should not be interfered with in absence of perversity
