Citations: Gottipulla Venkata Siva and Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (1970)
Date of Judgement: 19/1/1970
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 1967
Case Type: Criminal Appeal
Petitioner: Gottipulla Venkata Siva and Others
Respondent: State of Andhra Pradesh and Another
Bench:
- Hon’ble Justice M. Hidayatullah
- Hon’ble Justice A.N Ray
- Hon’ble Justice I.D Dua
Court: Supreme Court of India
Statutes Referred:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section – 34,96,97,99,103,106,147,148,149,302,326
- Indian Arms Act; Section – 19(e)
- Code of Criminal Procedure,1973; Section – 429
Cases Referred:
- Munshi Ram And Others Vs Delhi Administration, 1968
- Krishna Vs State of Rajasthan, Cra 23 of 1960
Facts:
- The dispute revolved around the utilization of a kunta, which was government property, leading to a confrontation between the occupiers and the accused.
- Initially, civil court issued orders restraining the accused from interfering with the land within the kunta.
- In response, the occupiers cultivated crops on their land, and the accused constructed new bund to irrigate their own crops.
- The occupiers attempted to remove the bund, and when objected, they were assaulted.
- The Appellants comprising ten individuals, were tried on 22 charges by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and were acquitted of all charges.
- The state appealed to the High Court, resulting in a difference of opinion among the two learned judges. One judge upheld the acquittal on the grounds of private defense, while the other asserted that the prosecution’s case was proven under Section 429 Cr.Pc.
- Subsequently, the case was presented before a third learned judge, who supported the prosecution’s case, leading to the conviction of the Appellants on some charges.
- As a result, the Accused individuals appealed to the Supreme Court, focusing their arguments on the right of private defense.
Issues Involved
- Whether the court should consider the plea of the accused regarding the right of private defense under Section 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- Whether the appeal is maintainable.
Contention of Appellant:
The counsel for appellant contented that:
- The occupiers requested to remove the bund, warning that their crops would be damaged, but the accused ignored their pleas and threatened violence.
- Prosecution witnesses testified that the occupiers, along with their friends, went to the kunta unarmed to peacefully persuade the accused to remove the bund, but was attacked with sticks and spears in return.
Contention of Respondent’s
The counsel for Respondent contented that:
- The occupiers forcibly attempted to remove the bund, and when objected, they were beated.
- The accused contended that the occupiers were the aggressors, justifying their actions as self-defense.
Judgement:
The appeal was allowed, and the Appellants were acquitted..
Ratio Decidendi:
- The right of private defence of person and property is recognised in all free, civilised, democratic societies within certain reasonable limits.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the case involving a dispute over the utilization of a government-owned kunta and the subsequent confrontation between the occupiers and the accused sheds light on the pivotal concept of the right to private defense. The right of private defense, as recognized in IPC, is indispensable, but it must operate within reasonable limits. This case highlights the need to carefully assess the sequence of events and the actions of all parties involved in such disputes to ensure that justice prevails and that individuals are not penalized for protecting their interests within the bounds of the law.
Drafted By: Samanta Rao, CLS – Gitarattan International Business School
Edited By: Bharti Verma, Associate Editor at law Insider
Published on: October 17, 2023 at 11:45 IST
