Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment that discusses the right to private defence embodied under Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 3- judge consisting of Justice KS Hegde, Justice SM Sikri and Justice JM Shelat.  

Facts 

• The field measuring five bighas and thirteen biswas, was an evacuee property under the management of a managing officer. 
• The Central Government acquired the property under the Displaced Persons Act, 1954, and sold it via public auction on 2nd January, 1961. PW 17, Ashwani Kumar Dutt, purchased it for Rs. 7,600. 
• The events relating to possession and sale certificate are as follows: 
  • Provisional possession was given on 10th October, 1961. 
  • Sale certificate was issued on 8th February, 1962. 
  • Actual possession was delivered on 22nd June, 1962, as per the warrant issued by the managing officer, PW 5, and executed by PW 10. 
• The details of the incident that took place on 1st July 1962 are as follows: 
  • PW 17, his father PW 19, and others, including PW 16, PW 15, and B. N. Acharya (tractor driver), went to level the land. 
  • The appellants, armed with spears and lathis, attacked them, causing injuries to PW 17, PW 19, and the tractor driver. 
• The Appellant pleaded the following: 
  • They claimed that Jamuna (DW 3), their relative, had been a tenant for over 30 years and his tenancy was never legally terminated. 
  • They alleged that possession was never legally delivered on June 22, 1962, and Jamuna remained in control of the land. 
  • They argued that the complainant's party came forcefully with a tractor, and PW 19 carried an unlicensed pistol. 
  • They stated that they used minimum force to remove the complainant’s party from the field. 
• The Lower Courts held the following 
  • The courts accepted the prosecution's version regarding both legal possession and the manner of the attack. 
  • The appellants were convicted under Sections 447, 324 read with 149, and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The issue was before the Supreme Court to determine. 

Issues Involved  

• Whether the appellants have established satisfactorily the right of private defence pleaded by them? 
• Whether the right to private defence was exceeded in this case? 

Observation 

• Regarding the right to private defence the Court observed that: 
  • It is well-settled that even if an accused does not plead self defence, it is open to the court to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record. 
  • Further, the Court held that the burden of proving the defence of self defence is on the accused and the same must be proved to the extent of preponderance of probability. 
• The primary issue that the Court determined in the first case was who was in possession of the land on 1st July 1962. 
• It was observed that DW3 (Jamuna) had been a tenant for over 30 years of the land in question. 
• Further, it was observed that Jamuna continued to be in lawful possession and PW 17 and 19 knew the same. 
• The following observations were made by the Court with regard to right to private defence: 
  • Law does not require a person whose property is forcibly tried to be occupied by trespassers to run away and seek the protection of the authorities.  
  • The right of private defence serves a social purpose and that right should be liberally construed. 
  • Such a right not only will be a restraining influence on bad characters but it will encourage the right spirit in a free citizen.  
  • There is nothing more degrading to the human spirit than to run away in the face of peril. 
• The Court applying the law to the facts held that the appellant had exceeded their right to private defence. 
• Resultantly, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused persons.

Conclusion

• This is a landmark judgment dealing with right to private defence, it’s application and limitation. 
• The Court in this case gave the benefit of the defence to the accused persons.