Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 803 (MP)

GUDDU RAKESH v. STATE OF M. P.

2000-08-10

S.C.PANDEY

body2000
S. C. PANDEY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 21. 9. 1999 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 4 73/96 convicting the applicant under Section 323. I. P. C. and sentencing him to 28 days of rigorous imprisonment already undergone by him during the pendency of the trial. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 18-9-1995 Badriprasad along with his niece Mst. Ganqotri Bai was grazing cattle. The cattle strayed and entered the field belonging to the applicant. On this score altercation between the applicant and the other co-accused Tikku with the complainant and her niece took place. On account of the altercation the applicant caused simple injury to the co m p Ia in ant. ( 3 ) THE defence of the applicant and co-accused persons was that the cattle were deliberately allowed to enter the field belonging to the applicant for the purpose of causing damage to the standing Soyabeen crop in the field. It was also alleged that upon remonstration by the accused persons the complainant used Lathi and tried to assault them and, therefore, in defence of person and also private property of the accused persons the applicant caused injuries to the complainant. ( 4 ) THE finding recorded by the trial Court is that the field belonging to co-accused Tikku was near the canal in the village. The cattle belonging to the complainant party entered the field belonging to co-accused Tikku. Thereupon accused persons began to abuse the complainant. It was found by the trial Court that it was the complainant party which allowed the cattle to enter in the field of Tikku. Therefore, it is claimed on behalf of the applicant in this court that the trial Court committed error in not granting the applicant benefit of right of private defence of property. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the very fact that the, cattle entered the field belonging to co-accused Tikku gave him right of private defence of property. The criminal trespass or the mischief committed by the complainant party by allowing the cattle to stray in the field in front of their eyes gave the accused persons right of private defence of property. This right continued so long as the cattle were in their field. The criminal trespass or the mischief committed by the complainant party by allowing the cattle to stray in the field in front of their eyes gave the accused persons right of private defence of property. This right continued so long as the cattle were in their field. It appears that there is no evidence on record that the complainant party offered to drive out the cattle. It appears that there was an altercation and the beatings, were given in the field belonging to co-accused Tikku. Therefore, there is preponderance of probability that the altercation occurred in the field of coaccused Tikku where the cattle were strayed inside the field of Tikku. Under these circumstances it would be better to give the applicant the benefit of right of private defence of property. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY the revision succeeds and is allowed. Applicant Guddu alias Rakesh is acquitted 6f the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Certified copy of the order be supplied as per rules. Revision allowed. .