Observing that when it is not clear from evidence which party was the aggressor in a clash, then it would be deemed that it was a “free fight”, where each person is responsible for their own act, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted 4 women and upheld the conviction of 2 men in a 1984 land dispute case.
A bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar passed the judgment while dealing with an appeal filed against the June 1988 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lalitpur.
Briefly put, an FIR was lodged by one Mannu Lal on September 20, 1984, alleging that the accused side forcibly started harvesting the crop on a disputed 6.45-acre land parcel at Nazarbagh Kunwa, Village Basatguwa.
According to the prosecution’s case, an altercation took place between them, which led to a clash involving lathis and sickles between the accused and the informant party. During this fight, both sides sustained injuries.
The clash also resulted in the deaths of 2 persons from the accused party (Zalim and Bhagirath), for which a cross-case under Section 302 IPC was lodged against 15 persons of the informant’s side.
In 1988, the trial court convicted 12 accused persons under Sections 147, 323/149, and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and released them on probation for good conduct for 1 year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1968.
Challenging their convictions, the accused persons moved the High Court in 1988. During the pendency of the appeal, 6 persons died and the appeal stood abated qua them.
The appeal survived for the six remaining appellants (4 women and 2 men).
Considering the evidence on record, Justice Sanjiv Kumar noted that there was litigation pending between both the parties with regard to disputed land and the prosecution failed to clearly show which party was aggressor and which party had sown the Maze crop over the disputed land.
The bench said that when it is not established by the prosecution that the disputed land or the crop belongs to the informant’s side, then their right of private defence of property, does not arise in this case.
“So, when it is not clear from evidence which party was the aggressor, then it would be deemed that it was a free fight. In case of free fight each person/ party is responsible for its act,” the Court observed.
Regarding the roles attributed to the 4 surviving female appellants, the Court noted discrepancies in the testimonies of 4 prosecution witnesses.
The bench pointed out that while the 4 women-appellants were present at the scene, the prosecution’s own injured witnesses said during the cross-examination that they did not pick up weapons, nor did they commit any assault.
“None of the women assaulted to anyone, and it was both the parties who were assaulting each other. Thus, there is no clear evidence that appellants Smt. Badi Bahu @ Kanchan Devi, Smt. Sanjhali Bahu wife of Bhajan Lal, Smt. Manjhli Bahu wife of Baijnath and Smt. Manjhali Bahu wife of Zalim, participated in the crime. There is also no evidence that they shared any common object with other co-accused. Therefore, they deserve to get the benefit of doubt,” the judge ruled.
Consequently, the High Court set aside their conviction and acquitted them of all charges.
However, regarding the 2 surviving male appellants (Bhajan Lal and Ramanand), the Court found specific and reliable ocular evidence which established their active participation in the clash.
Hence, upholding their conviction, the High Court directed them to appear before the trial court within 1 month to execute bonds for maintaining good behaviour on probation for a period of 1 year.
Leave a comment