https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281788 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. en-us Wed, 12 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jul 2019 14:37:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281788 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281788