Private defence fails where force is premeditated and disproportionate, while partial acquittal does not undermine reliable evidence against others.

Unauthorized entry amounts to criminal trespass only when made with the intent required by Section 441 IPC; a visit to ask occupiers to vacate disputed land did not satisfy that test, so no right of private defence arose under Sections 96 and 97. Even on a wider assumption of trespass, a premeditated and disproportionate retaliatory attack exceeded the limits of private defence under Sections 99, 100 and 104, and Exception 2 to Section 300 did not apply. The Court also reiterated that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not govern criminal trials, and evidence may be accepted against some accused and rejected against others; the convictions were therefore maintained except for one appellant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to claim the right of private defence of person or property on the facts proved; (ii) Whether the acquittal of some co-accused and the rejection of part of the prosecution case required the appellants' conviction to be disturbed.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to claim the right of private defence of person or property on the facts proved.

Analysis: The evidence accepted by the Court showed that the complainant party entered the disputed land only to ask the accused to withdraw from it and not with intent to commit an offence, intimidate, insult or annoy the persons in possession. Such entry did not amount to criminal trespass within the meaning of Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and therefore did not trigger the right of private defence under Sections 96 and 97. Even on the assumption that some trespass had occurred, the attack launched by the appellants was found to be premeditated and far exceeded any permissible limit of defence under Sections 99, 100 and 104, and Exception 2 to Section 300 was inapplicable.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the plea of private defence, and the convictions for the serious offences were sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquittal of some co-accused and the rejection of part of the prosecution case required the appellants' conviction to be disturbed.

Analysis: The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not govern criminal trials. The Court found that the prosecution evidence, read with the medical and recovery evidence, remained reliable against the appellants notwithstanding acquittal of others. The appellants' participation was proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the distinction drawn by the trial court between the accused who were convicted and those who were acquitted did not justify interference, except in the case of Jai Narain who stood on the same footing as persons not named in the first information report.

Conclusion: The conviction of the appellants was maintained except for Jai Narain, whose appeal was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed in substance for all appellants except one, and the convictions and sentences were upheld against the remaining appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Unauthorised entry into property amounts to criminal trespass only when accompanied by the requisite intent under Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and a premeditated and disproportionate retaliatory assault cannot be justified as private defence; in criminal trials, the evidence may be accepted against some accused and rejected against others.

---