Skip to content


Lal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 205 of 1977
Judge
Reported in1978(11)WLN298
AppellantLal Singh
RespondentState of Rajasthan
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....a person takes away the property of another by trespassing over his land, and such act amounts to an offence of theft and criminal trespass, the person in whom the right of possession is vested may, while the trespass and the act of theft are in progress, turn the trespasser out of the land by force and may also resist ins act of taking away of his property and if in so doing he inflicts such injuries on the trespasser person the thief as are warrantee by the situation, he com nits no office and his action ill be covered by the principle of self deience.;(b) penal code - section 394 part i--appellant exceeding right of private defence slightly--held conviction under section 304 part i is justified--sentence reduced to already under gone.;appeal party allowed - .....inflicted some injuries on the deceased. soon after the incident the appellant admitted having inflicted injuries on the deceased as he found him taking away his property in the night. the deceased also made a dying declaration to some witnesses, who came there hearing the cries.3. when a person takes away the property of another by trespassing ever his land, such act amounts to an offence of theft and criminal trespass, the person in whom the right of possession is vested may, while the trespass and the act of theft are in progress, turn the trespasser cut of the land by force and may also resist the ace of taking away of his property and if in so doing he inflicts such injuries on the trespasser or on the thief as are warranted by the situation, ht commits no offence and his action.....
Judgment:

C. Honniah, C.J.

1. The appellant has beer convicted under Section 304 part I, Indian Penal Cede, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

2. The facts proved or admitted are these : On the night of March 4, 1976 the appellant was sleeping in his field. Same where in the night he woke up due to some noise and found the deceased Lalsingh removing fodder belonging to him, and then going away with the fodder Soon thereafter he accosted him and questioned him why he was doing such an act In this be half there was a quarrel and during the course of quarrel the appellant inflicted some injuries on the deceased. Soon after the incident the appellant admitted having inflicted injuries on the deceased as he found him taking away his property in the night. The deceased also made a dying declaration to some witnesses, who came there hearing the cries.

3. When a person takes away the property of another by trespassing ever his land, such act amounts to an offence of theft and criminal trespass, the person in whom the right of possession is vested may, while the trespass and the act of theft are in progress, turn the trespasser cut of the land by force and may also resist the ace of taking away of his property and if in so doing he inflicts such injuries on the trespasser or on the thief as are warranted by the situation, ht commits no offence and his action will be covered by the principle of self defence.

4. In this case the appellant has rightly exceeded his right of self defenee and, therefore the conviction is justified. So far as the sentence is concerned, I feel that the ends of justice will be met by reducing that sentence to the period already undergone. Sentence of fine is set aside. Accordingly, I direct that he shall beset at liberty forthwith. With this modification in sentence the appeal is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //