Citation: Kanchan and Ors. Vs State of U.P, 1982 CriLJ 1633

Date of Judgement: 07/05/1982

Equivalent Citations: 1982 CriLJ 1633

Case No: N/A

Case type: Criminal Appeal

Appellant: Kanchan and Ors.

Respondent: State of U.P.

Bench: Hon’ble Justice P Goel, Hon’ble Justice R Lal

Court: Allahabad High Court

Statue Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 147,148,302,304

Cases Referred:

  • Paras Ram Vs Rex AIR 1949 All 274: 1949-50 Cri LJ 445,
  • Munshi Ram Vs Delhi Administration AIR 1968 SC 702: 1968 Cri LJ 806
  • State Of Bihar Vs Mathu Pandey & Ors , 1970 AIR 271 970 SCR (1) 358
  • Gurdatta Mal and Ors. Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 257


This appeal is directed against the order dated 3/11/1976 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in Sessions Trial No. 424 of 1975 convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences of rioting punishable under Sections 147, 148 and murder etc., punishable under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 324/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code.


  • According to the accusation Udal Singh, Tara Singh, Bhagwan Singh, who herein are Appellants 2 to 4 had country made guns.
  • Chhadami, Appellant 5 had gun, Lala Ram, Amar Singh Appellants 6, 9 had lances, Panna Lai, Appellant 7 had Pharsa, Bhupal, Nand Ram, Appellants 8, 10 had blades and Kanchan, Appellant l had lathi.
  • Chhadami shot Mahendrapai and caused his passing. Bhagwan Singh shot Babu Ram and caused his passing. Tara Singh shot Netrapal and caused his passing. Udal shot Bhagirath who passed on in the town Abadi and not on the spot.
  • The Appellants having guns kept on discharging, Different Appellants attacked the 6 people Jaipal and others, who got wounds as well.
  • Kalicharan (PW-1) filed the first information report at police headquarters Fariha at 2:30 P. M. on the date of event. The police headquarters was 4 milesaway from Nagla Arapur, villa of Bhikampur where the event occurred.
  • The Appellants are inhabitants of the abutting village for example Nagla Kiru, village of Bhikampur. The 6 harmed were taken to S. N. M. Emergency clinic Firozabad by Fateh Singh and Mani Ram. Dr. C. K. Sharma, Eye Surgeon of the said emergency clinic analysed them somewhere around of 5 to 6:10 P.M. on the date of event.
  • Salig Ram got one etched injury 10 cm. x 2 cm. x bone on back of right shoulder angled was discovered, Raghubir Singh had 7 wounds, Rajpal had 3 wounds, Tota Ram had 5 wounds, Jaipal had 2 wounds, Rameshwar had one cut injury 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle on right side head with wound 4 cm x 3 cm around it 10 cm above right ear, was found.
  • Shyam Bir Singh, Station Officer (PW-7) was harmed in an engine cycle mishap. Thusly, he was in the clinic from 3-4 days before the date of event. Radha Kishan Sharma, A.S.I. (PW- 5) was accountable for the police headquarters on the date of event.
  • Shyam Bir Singh, Station Officer took up examination from 15/8/1975. On that date he examined the six harmed in the Firozabad clinic. The Appellants gave up before the judges on different dates between 17/8/1975 to 22/8/1975.
  • Shyam Bir Singh submitted charge sheet against them on 24/8/1975.
  • That Kalicharan and others arrived at the contested land on the date of event at 11:00 A.M. furthermore, began planting paddy plants.
  • The Appellants furnished differently came there and stated that they were planting paddy in their field. Quickly then the 4 Appellants having guns utilized their weapons and different appellants started to use their weapons.
  • Jhunni Lal, Dangal Singh, Shobha Ram and another Jhunni Lal came up from the connecting fields, and Immediately the Appellants fled.
  • Tara Singh and Chhadam, Appellants accepted that, they were present at the hour of event. Different Appellants even didn’t concede their essence at the hour of event. Tara Singh expressed that he got wounds and that he was therapeutically inspected in prison.
  • Ghhadami expressed that Tara Singh heard that 10 people were planting paddy in their field, that immediately he alongside Tara Singh and 2 others came to there with weapons, that they asked the said 10 people not to plant paddy, that those people started to give mishandles and employed lathi and pharsa and that in self-preservation he and his three friends used their weapons there is no injury report of Chhadami.
  • The prosecution inspected 4 people as observers of the event Kalicharan, Raghubir Singh, Salig Ram and Dangal Singh (PW-1 to 4).
  • The Sessions Judge has not put any dependence on the declaration of Dangal Singh.
  • Session Judge accepted the declaration of the other 3 observers and the Appellant was sentenced.

Issue Involved:

  • Whether the Victims of the attack were planting paddy in the land on the date and time of the event that is 10/8/1975, 11 A.M.?

Contention of Appellant:

The counsel of the Appellant contended that:

  • The Appellants’ counsel claims that the victims were assaulted while exercising their right to private defence of person and property.
  • Furthermore, the Appellants who went beyond their right of private defence were held individually culpable for their actions, and the other appellants who did not go beyond their right of private defence were not held liable.
  • Raghubir Singh and Salig Ram admitted that the Appellants were injured in the incident, according to the Appellants’ attorney. Raghubir Singh is reported to have told the investigating officer that they had used lathis and that the accused had been injured. Raghubir Singh vehemently denied making such a remark.
  • The learned Counsel for the Appellants referred to the cases of Paras Ram Vs Rex AIR 1949 All 274 : 1949-50 Cri LJ 445, Munshi Ram Vs Delhi Administration AIR 1968 SC 702 1968 Cri LJ 806, State of Bihar Vs Nathu Pandey to support their arguments.

Contention of Respondent:

The counsel of the Respondent Countered the Argument of the Petitioner and contended that:

  • The investigating officer, proved the said part of the statement of Raghubir Singh during investigation, that Raghubir Singh and others wielded lathis, the counsel stated that, there is nothing in his statement to show as to which of the appellants received injuries. 
  • The learned Counsel for the Appellants cited to the cases of Paras Ram Vs Rex AIR 1949 All 274: 1949-50 Cri LJ 445, Munshi Ram Vs Delhi Administration AIR 1968 SC 702: 1968 Cri LJ 806, State of Bihar Vs Nathu Pandey, and in reply the opposite counsel urged that it is Suffice it to say that the facts of all these three cases are quite different from the facts of the present case as found by us above. Therefore, these cases are of no help.

Obiter dicta:

  • Every appealing party is vicariously at risk for the demonstration of his colleagues.

Ratio Decidendi:

  • Salig Ram and others, who were planting the paddy, didn’t have any destructive weapons. As the most some of them might be having lathis which too they didn’t employ and didn’t create any apparent injury on the individual of any of the appellants.
  • Then again, out of 10 Appellants, 9 had dangerous weapons, to be specific, guns, firearm, swords, lances and pharsa and just one of them had a lathi. This lathi was likewise utilized in the event. Tota Ram, Raghubir Singh and Rameshwar each got one gashed twisted by the lathi.  Slashed injury on the individual of Raghubir Singh was on the brow.
  • It implies that Kanchan expected to cause injury on the head, an imperative piece of the body.


Appeal was excused and the request dated 3/11/1976 passed by the Sessions Judge Mainpuri indicting and condemning the appellants for the different Offenses is insisted, and it was likewise held that Appellants had no right of private defence of individual.


There has been no hesitation in holding that Udal and his companion appellants had absolutely no right of private defence of property. There can be no doubt that it true, just before opening the assault with deadly weapons the Appellants emphasized that the land in dispute was their field. This mere assertion does not have the effect of giving right of private defence of property.

Therefore, each Appellant is vicariously liable for the act and for his companions.

Drafted by: Bharti verma, Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies and School of Law

Related Post