The State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkhelwan

MCRC-12508-2015 (THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs RAMKHELWAN) 14-09-2015 Shri Pradeep Singh, G.A. for the appellant/State. Heard on leave application. The State has preferred an application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17.3.2015 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Anuppur in ST. No.103/2009 whereby, all the respondents have been acquitted from the charge of Section 307 read with Section 34, Section 326 read with Section

34 and 323 read with Section 34 of I.PC. The prosecution's case in short is that on 29.6.2005 the complainant Omprakash (PW14) had lodged an FIR at Police Station Jaithari that he had possession of a property known as Bhutai Wale Khet. A dispute of that property was also pending before the Civil Court. On 29.6.2005 at about 9.30 a.m Omprakash and his elder brother Ramesh @ Kharsen went to that field and found that the respondents were ploughing that field which was in possession of the complainant. The complainant Omprakash prohibited them to do so and thereafter, the respondents assaulted him and his companions by sticks and small axe. The victim Ram Kumar had sustained a grave injury caused by a sharp cutting weapon whereas, Ram Kumar Mohan, Kashi and Kharsen sustained fatal injuries. All the victims have also sustained injuries caused by the sharp cutting weapons and otherwise. After due investigation a charge sheet was filed. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State, it appears that the respondents have proved their counter case filed against the complainant party for offence under sections 307, 325, 323, 147, 148 read with section 149 of I.P.C. With help of Dr. Sanjeev Sharma (PW2) the respondents have proved that the injuries were caused to Ram Kumar, Brigendra, Ramlakhan and Ramkhelawan. X-ray reports of Brigendra, Ram Kumar and Ramlakhan were also proved. Patwari Man Singh (PW1) who prepared the spot map has stated in the cross examination that the disputed land was shown in the name of Ram Kumar s/o Rikhiram. On that land there was no possession of the victim Ram Kumar. On the contrary the possession of the land was with the respondents and their relatives Ram Kumar s/o Rikhiram who was the main victim in the counter case. When the respondents had the possession of the property then they were capable to plough the field and the complainant and his companions had no right to disturb the possession of the respondents. Hence, it is apparent that the complainant party of the case were aggressors who went with arms to dispossess the respondents from possession of their property. Hence, if the respondents had assaulted the complainant and his companions then it is done under the right of private defence. Both the cases were registered of offence under section 307 of I.P.C and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have crossed their limit of their right of private defence. In such a case when the respondents were cultivating their field peacefully and complainant and their companions were the aggressors who were armed with deadly weapons then right of private defence cannot be weighed on golden scales. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents. There is no reason so that leave may be granted. Consequently, leave application filed by the State is hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be sent to the Courts below along with its record for information. (SHANTANU KEMKAR) JUDGE (N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE