Settled possession and private defence limited: murder conviction upheld, but common intention for grievous hurt was not proved.

Settled possession defeated the plea of private defence: although the complainant had encroached on the chak road, he was in actual peaceful possession, so the appellants could not use force to dispossess him. The prosecution was not weakened by injuries on the accused because the evidence explained a mutual fight and did not cast doubt on the occurrence. The eye-witness version of the fatal abdominal blow matched the medical evidence, supporting the murder conviction. However, common intention to cause grievous hurt was not proved against the other appellants, so the conviction under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC was set aside while the lesser convictions were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellants could claim the right of private defence in respect of the land dispute and the resulting assault; (ii) whether the prosecution case was discredited by the failure to explain injuries on the accused; (iii) whether the conviction of the appellant who caused the fatal injury was inconsistent with the medical evidence; (iv) whether the other appellants had the common intention necessary to sustain the conviction for grievous hurt.

Issue (i): whether the appellants could claim the right of private defence in respect of the land dispute and the resulting assault.

Analysis: The land was found to be in the settled and peaceful possession of the complainant, who had encroached on the chak road and cultivated it for some weeks before the occurrence. A trespasser in completed possession cannot be ousted by force; the true owner must resort to legal remedies. Since the complainant was in actual possession, he was entitled to defend that possession, and the appellants, who initiated the attack, could not lawfully claim private defence.

Conclusion: The plea of private defence was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the prosecution case was discredited by the failure to explain injuries on the accused.

Analysis: The evidence showed that both sides were armed and that there was a mutual fight. The prosecution witnesses accounted for the injuries on the accused and the version of events was not rendered doubtful by the existence of those injuries.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not discredited on this ground.

Issue (iii): whether the conviction of the appellant who caused the fatal injury was inconsistent with the medical evidence.

Analysis: The eye-witness account that the deceased was pierced in the abdomen with a Biroo was consistent with the medical evidence showing an abdominal injury capable of being caused by that weapon. The precise manner of penetration did not undermine the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The conviction for murder was upheld.

Issue (iv): whether the other appellants had the common intention necessary to sustain the conviction for grievous hurt.

Analysis: The object of the other appellants was to assert a supposed right over the road, not to cause grievous hurt. The evidence did not establish a common intention to inflict grievous injury, though their assault on the witnesses proved the lesser offences.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was set aside, while the convictions under Sections 324 read with 34, 323 read with 34, and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, resulting in acquittal of the co-appellants from the charge of grievous hurt in common intention, while the conviction and sentence of the main assailant for murder remained intact and the remaining convictions stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A person in completed settled possession of property, even if a trespasser, cannot be forcibly dispossessed by another claiming title or a right of passage, and the right of private defence turns on settled possession, common intention, and the nature of the individual assault proved by the evidence.

---