# RAM RATTAN AND ORS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1977] 2 S.C.R. 232
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-11-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 282: of 1971
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ram-rattan-and-ors-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-7031
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A
B
c
D
232
RAM RATTAN AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
November 26, 1976
[P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI,
JJ.]
Indian Penal Code, S.' 441, on acco111plishme111 of possession of property by
trespasser, whether true owner entitled to dispossess him and plead right to
private defence.
~
The complainant Ram Khelawan had illegally encroached upon a portion of
a public road and grown a paddy crop on it.
A complaint against him was
pending before the Panchayat. He was in peaceful possession of the land to the
knowledge of the appellants who nevertheless went armed and tried to exercise
their right over the public road, by passing through the field with their calltle
and thereby damaging the crop.
The complainants protested and a fight ensued, as a result of which, one of the complainants' party died and
injurie~
were received by both sides.
The appellants pleaded the
right of
private
defence of property and person, which they had exceeded, but were concurrently
found guilty by both, the Trial Court and the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal the Oourt,
HELD : (1) A true owner has every ri~ht to dispossess or throw out a trespasser while he is in the act or process of trespassing but this right is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his
possession to the knowledge of the true owner. In such circumstances the law
requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse
E
to the remedies under, the law.
[235 F-G, 236 A]
F
Pura11 Singh & Ore. v. State of Punjab [1975] Supp, S.C.R. 299, applied.
The Court further observed :
It is a peculiar feature of our criminal law that where
a
trespasser
has
succeeded in taking recent wrongful possession of the property vested in the
public for common enjoyment, the members of the village or the real owner
are not entitled in law to throw out the trespasser but have to take recourse
to the legal remedies available, and if any member of the public tries to secure
public property from the possession of the trespasser he is normally
visited
with the onerous penalty of law.
[233i /\-BJ
(2) The complainant Ram Khela wan was in peaceful possession of the land
to the knowledge of the appellants and he was in law entitled to defend his
possession.
The appellants who were the aggressors and
had
opened
the
assault, could not .claim any right of private defence
either of person
or
G
property.
[237 A-BJ
H

## Text

A
B
c
D
232
RAM RATTAN AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
November 26, 1976
[P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI,
JJ.]
Indian Penal Code, S.' 441, on acco111plishme111 of possession of property by
trespasser, whether true owner entitled to dispossess him and plead right to
private defence.
~
The complainant Ram Khelawan had illegally encroached upon a portion of
a public road and grown a paddy crop on it.
A complaint against him was
pending before the Panchayat. He was in peaceful possession of the land to the
knowledge of the appellants who nevertheless went armed and tried to exercise
their right over the public road, by passing through the field with their calltle
and thereby damaging the crop.
The complainants protested and a fight ensued, as a result of which, one of the complainants' party died and
injurie~
were received by both sides.
The appellants pleaded the
right of
private
defence of property and person, which they had exceeded, but were concurrently
found guilty by both, the Trial Court and the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal the Oourt,
HELD : (1) A true owner has every ri~ht to dispossess or throw out a trespasser while he is in the act or process of trespassing but this right is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his
possession to the knowledge of the true owner. In such circumstances the law
requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse
E
to the remedies under, the law.
[235 F-G, 236 A]
F
Pura11 Singh & Ore. v. State of Punjab [1975] Supp, S.C.R. 299, applied.
The Court further observed :
It is a peculiar feature of our criminal law that where
a
trespasser
has
succeeded in taking recent wrongful possession of the property vested in the
public for common enjoyment, the members of the village or the real owner
are not entitled in law to throw out the trespasser but have to take recourse
to the legal remedies available, and if any member of the public tries to secure
public property from the possession of the trespasser he is normally
visited
with the onerous penalty of law.
[233i /\-BJ
(2) The complainant Ram Khela wan was in peaceful possession of the land
to the knowledge of the appellants and he was in law entitled to defend his
possession.
The appellants who were the aggressors and
had
opened
the
assault, could not .claim any right of private defence
either of person
or
G
property.
[237 A-BJ
H
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 282:
of 1971.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
12-4-1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal
1909/68).
S. K. Mehta, for the appellants.
Order dated
Appeal No.
D. P. Uniyal and 0. P. Rana, for the respondent.
_, i_
RAM RATTAN v. u. P. STATE (Fazal Ali, !.)
233
R. L. Kohli, for the Intervener.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J. It is a peculiar feature of our criminal law t~at
where a trespasser has succeeded in taking recent wrongful possess10n
of the property vested in the public for common enjoyment, the menibers of the village or the real owner are not entitled in law to throw
out the trespasser but have to take recourse to the legal remedi~s
available, and if any member of the public tries to secure public
property from the possession of the trespasser he is normally visited
with the onerous penalty of law.
This is what appears to have happened in this appeal by special leave in which the appeUants appear
to have got themselves involved in an armed conflict with the prosecution party resulting in the death of the deceased, injuries to some
of the prosecution · witnesses and injuries to three of the accused
themselves.
The prosecution case in short is that on July 18, 1966, at about
7-30 to 8-00 in the morning when Ram Khelawan and his companions
were removing weeds from the paddy crop sown by them in the field
which included a portion of the Chak Road which had recently been
encroached by the complainantis' party and amalgamated with their
fields, Ram Ratan and Ram Samujh armed with lathis and Din Bandhu
and Ram Sajiwan carrying a ballam and Biroo respectively entered
the field of Ram Khelawan with their bullocks and insited on passing
through the field along with their bullocks, which according to them
was a public road.
The complainants protested against the highhanded action of the party of the accused on which Ram Ratan
exhorted his companions to assault the deceased Murli as a consequence of which Ram Sajiwan assaulted Murli in the abdomen with
his Biroo as a result ~f which Murli sustained serious injuries and
fell down in the field and ultimately succumbed to the injuries.
The
other members of the complainants' party, namely, Ram Khelawan,
Manohar, Sarabjit, Mewa Lal and Satrohan were also
assaulted by
Ram Ratan and his party.
Soon after the occurrence Rameshwar
Pathak, a police officer, who happened to be present at the spot
recorded the statement of P.W. 1 Ram Khelawan which was treated
as the F.1.R. and after conducting the usual investigation submitted a
chargesheet against all the accused persons who were put on trial
before the Sessions Judge, Barabanki.
The Learned Sessions Judge
acquitted the accused Din Bandhu and convicted the appellant Ram
Saji"".an under s. 302 I.P.C.
Ram _Ratan and Ram Samujh were
convicted under ss. 326/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to eight
years'
rigorous imprisonment.
Three appellants Ram Ratan, Ram Sajiwan
and Ram Samujh were further convicted under s. 447 I.P.C. to three
months' rigorous imprisonment and under ss. 324/34 I.P.C. to two
years' rigorous imprisonment under each of the two counts. and under
ss. 323/34 I.P.C. to six months' rigorous imprisonment and ordered
that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
The accused persons
filed an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad which was also
dismissed and thereafter they obtained special leave of this Court
and, hence this appeal before us.
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 s.c.R.
The defence of the accused was that shortly before the occurrence
proceedings for consolidation of holdings had taken place in the village
as a l'esult of which the Revenue authorities provided a Chak Road
which passed through plot Nos. 853, 854, 864, 823 and 887.
This
Chak Road was meant to be a public road to enable the residrnts
of the village to pass through this road with their cattle.
This road
happened to be adjacent to the field of Ram Khelawan P.W. 1 and
he took undue advantage of the proximity of the road and encroached upon the same and amalgamated it with his cultivable field. The
accused persons wanted to assert their lawful right over the Chak
Road and it was the prosecution party which was the aggressor and
started assaulting the accused as a result of which three persons on
the side of the accused received serious injuries. The accused, therefore, assaulted the deceased in self-defence.
Even otherwise,
the
accused pleaded innocence.
Both the courts below have come to a concurrent finding of fact
that the occurrence took place as alleged by the prosecution and that
the accused persons were the aggressors and had opened the assault
on the deceased.
The Trial Court has also the High Court have
concurrently found, on a full and complete appreciation of the evidence, that although the place of occurrence was a part of the Chak
Road, yet the complainant Ram Khelawan had encroached on the
same and some time before the occurrence had brought the land
under cultivation over which he had grown paddy crop. The evidence
of the Sub-Inspector who visited the spot clearly shows that he found
paddy crop grown at the height of 4 or 6 digits. The learned counsd
for the appellants has not been able to show that the concurrent
finding of fact arrived at by the Sessions Judge and the High Court on
this point is in any way not borne out by the evidence. The learn~d
counsel for the appellants submitted two points before us.
In the
first place, he submitted that the finding of the High Court impliedly
shows that the accused· were trying to assert their lawful right <wer
the Chak Road which was wrongfully occupied by the complainant
and was in possession of the villagers.
The accused, therefore. had
every right to throw out the complainants' party who were trespa•~ers
by force.
The accused were, therefore, acting in the exercise of '.heir
right of private defence of person and property and were justified in
causing the death of the deceased, particularly in view of the seriom
injuries received by three of the party of the accused.
Reliance was
place<l, particularly on the Injury Reports of Ram Samujh. Harnam
and Ram Ratan. It appears that Ram Samujh received two injurie~
one being a lacerated wound 3 cm X 3/4 cm X 1 cm deep on the
posterior part of head and a contusion on the right side of thJ head,
while Harnam had four contusions and Ram Ratan had two :aeerated
wounds in the region of the ear. one punctured wound
in the left
forearm and one contusion. It was submitted that in view
of the
serious iiljuries, some of which were inflicted
by
sharp-cutting
weapons, it would not be said that the appellants had exceeded their
right of private defence.
The arrument is no doubt attractive.
but
on closer scrutiny we find that it is not tenable.
Jn view of th<> clear
finding of the High Court and the Sessions Judge that the land in
dispute was in the settled possession of the complainant Ram Khelawan
f.
-..
RAM RATTA" v. u. P. STATE (Fazal Ali, !.)
235
who rightly or \\Tongly encroached upon the road and converted it
into his cultivable land the accused had no right to throw the complainant by force.
In fact the Sessions Judge found thus :
"There is also no doubt that from the evidence on
record adduced by the prosecution and
the
defence,
it
appears that the Chak ·Road, if any was existing, was encroached upon by Ram Khelawan and his family members.
. . . . . . . . . . So far as the question whether the Chak Road
was
encroached upori., there was hardly any discrepancy
between the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the
defence.
It has been admitted by Ram Khelawan P.W. 1
that before the occurrence Ram Rattan and several
other
villagers whose Chaks are situated in the east of Ram Khelawan Chak used to sav that he had encroached upon the
Chak Road, and that i.n the absence of that Chak Road,
from where they should take their bullocks to their Chaks.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
From
these admissions also it is amply
proved that in fact there was a Chak Road but it was later
encroached upon by the complainant Ram Khelawan."
The High Court also found :
"It is thus clear that assuming that the consolidation
authorities had formed a Chak Road adjoining the Chak of
Ram Khelawan, it had been taken possession of by Ram
Khelawan included in his Chak ploughed by him and paddy
crop had been sown therein.
It is thus obvious that Ran~
Khelawan had established his possession over the land where
the incident took place and had been in peaceful possession
thereof for 2 to 3 weeks at least before the occurrence took
place."
It is well settled that a true owner has every right to dispossess or
throw out a trespasser, while the trespasser is .in the act or process
of trespassing and has not accomplished his possession, but this right
is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful
in accomplishing his possession to the knowledge of the true owner.
In such circumstances the law requires that the true owner should
dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies available
under the law.
In view of the clear finding of the High Court that
the complainant Ram Khelawan even after· encroachment had established his possession over the land in dispute for two to three weeks
before the occurrence. for the purpose of criminal law, the complainant must be treated to be in actual physical pm1session of the
land so·as to have a right of private defence to defend his possession
even against the true owner.
While it may not be possible· to lay
down a rule of universal application as to when the possession of a
trespasser becomes complete and accomplished. yet, as this Court
has indicated recently, one of the tests is to find out who had grown
the crop on the land in dispute.
In Puran Singh & Others v. State
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
236
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 s.c.R.
A
of Punjab(!), this matter was comprehensively considered and on of
us (Fazal Ali, J.) who spoke for the Court observed as follows :
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
"We, however, think that this is not what this Court
meant in defining the nature of the settled possession.
It is
indeed difficult to lay down any hard and fa~ rule as to when
the possession of a trespasser can mature into a settled pOtlsession.
But what this Court really meant was that" the
possession of a trespasser must be effective, undisturbed and
to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at
concealment. For instance a stray or a casual act of possession would not amount to settled possession.
There is no
special charm or magic in the word 'settled possession' nor
is it a ritualistic formula which can be confined in a strait
jacket but it has been used to mean such clear and effective
possession of a person, even if he is a trespasser, who gets
the right under the· criminal law to defend his
property
against attack even by the true owner ............... .
Thus in our opinion the nature of possession in such cases
which may entitle a trespasser to exercise the right of private
defence of properiy and person should contain the following
attributes :
(i) that the trespasser must be in actual physical possession of property over a sufficiently long perio\i;
(ii) that the possession must be to the knowledge either
express or implied of the owner or without any attempt
at concealment and which contains an element of animus
prossendie. The nature of possession of the trespasser would
however be a matter to be decicfeCi on facts and circumstances of each case;
(iii) the process of dispossession of the true owner by
the trespasser must be complete and final and must be acquiesced in by the true owner; and
(iv) that one of the usual tests to determine the quality
of settled possessions, in the case of culturable land, would
be whether or not the trespasser, after having taken possession, had grown any crop .. If the crop had been grown by
the trespasser, then even the true owner has no right to
destroy the crop grown by the trespasser and take forcible
possession, in wh;ch ca<c the trespasser will have a right of
private defence and the true owner will hav0 no right of
private defence."
In this case there is a clear finding of the High Court and the
Sessions Judge that the complainant Ram Khelawan had encroached
upon the land in dispute, had converted it into culturable field and
had grown paddy crop which the complainants' party was trying to
weed out on the day when the occurrence took place.
In these circumstances, therefore, the complainant was undoubtedly in posses-
(1) [1975] Supp, S. C.R. 299.
j
RAM RATTAN v. u. P. STATE (Fazal Ali, !.)
237
sion of the land and the appellants had no right to commit trespass
on the land and engage the complainants in a se_rious fight.
As the
complainant Ram Khelawan was in peaceful possession of the land
to the knowledge of the appellants, he was in law entitled. to. defe~d
his possession.-
The complainant,
the~efore, was fully
JUSt~ed m
protesting to the accused when they tned to pass through his field
and caused damage to the paddy crop by forcibly taking the bullocks
thFough the field.
In these circumstances the appellants who were
undoubtedly the aggressors and had opened the assault could not claim
any right of private defence either of person or property. For these
reasons, therefore, we agree with the finding of the High Court that
the accused are not entitled to claim the right of private defence, nor
can it be said that in causing the murderous assault on the deceased
they had merely exercised their right of private defence of property.
ft is true that the appellants were trying to exercise their lawful right
over a portion of the land which had been left apart as .a public road
for the use of villagers by the Revenue authorities, but as a complaint had already been filed before the Panchayat the appellant should
have allowed the law to take its course instead of taking the law in
their own hands by making an armed trespass into the property.
However, there can be no doubt that there was no common intention
on the part of all the accu~ed to cause the death of the deceased
Murli or to cause grievous injuries to him which was an individual
act of the appellant Ram Sajiwan.
The other appellants Ram Ratta.
and Ram Samujh, therefore, cannot be convicted under ss. 325/34
I.P.C.
Another point canvassed before us by counsel for the appellant
was that although three persons on the sjde of the accused had sustained serious injuries, the prosecution has not given any explanation
which shows that the origin of the prosecution is shrouded in mystery.
This contention is also without any substance.
The evidence of the
eye witnesses examined by the prosecution clearly shows that some
of them were also armed with lathis and sharp-cutting weapons, and
they have also stated that they wielded their weapons when the aecused
attached the complainants' party and that this was done in selfdefence. In view ·of the injuries on the person of the deceased and
the prosecution witnesses, namely,
Manohar, Sarabjit, Mewa Lal,
Satrohan and Ram Khelawan, there can be no doubt that there
was a mutual fight.
Thus in the instant case, the prosecution has
given sufficient explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused
persons and the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on this
ground.
Lastly it was submitted that so far as Ram Sajiwan was concerned
the evidence given _by the eye witnesses regarding the manner of the
assault is inconsistent with the medical evidence.
In this connection
reliance was placed by counsel for the appellants on the evidence
0f the Doctor which is to the effect that the injury on the deceasea
Murli was undoubtedly caused by a Biroo but it could have been
caused only if the Biroo after being .struck in the abdomen was rotated.
Much capital has been made out of this admission made by the Doctor,
but on a close scrutiny we find that this· circumstance is not sufficient
A
B
c
/
D
E
F
G
H
238
SUPRE11E COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 s.c.R.
A
to put the prosecution out of court.
There is clear and corisistent
evidence of the eye witnesses that the deceased had been assaulted
in the abdomen and this fact has been accepted by the two courts
concurrently that the deceased Murli was assaulted by Ram Sajiwan
wi'.h a Biroo. The medical evidence clearly shows that the deceased
had an injury in the abdomen. which could be caused by a Biroo.
The exact manner in which the Biroo was pierced in the abdomen
B
of the deceased could not have been observed by the witnesses, particularly in view of the mutual fight.
Since the injury could be caused
if the Biroo was rotated after being pierced, it must be presumed
in the circumstances that the assailant must haYe rotated the Diroo
after having pierced it in the abdomen of the deceased, otherwise the
injuries could not have been caused to the deceased. ·In these circumstances, therefore, we are not able to agree with counsel for the
C
appellan'.s that the assault on the deceased by Ram Sajiwan is in any
way inconsistent with the medical evidence. For these reasons, therefore, we find ourselves in agreement with the _High Court that the
prosecution has proved its case against this accused beyond reasonable doubt.
·
The injuries caused by the other appellan:s on the person of
D
Manohar, Sarabjit, Mewa Lal, Satrohan and Ram Khelawan. have been
proved by the eye witness whose. evidence has been accepted by
the High Court as also the Sessions Judge.
We see no reason to
interfere with the assessment of the evidence by the two Courts.
E
The only point that remains for consideration is as to the exact
offence committed by tlie appellants.
In the first place, once it is
held that the appellants had no right of private defence of person of
property, appellant Ram Sajiwan cannot escape conviction under s.
302 I.P.C. sirnpliciter, because the injury caused by him to the d=ased was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased.
The appellant
Ram Sajiwan was rightly convicted under s. 302 I.P.C. and as the
minimum sentence is life imprisonment we cannot do anythin.g about
F
the sentence either.
We would. like to observe, however, that the ·
facts, of the case do raise some amount of sympathy for the accused
Ram Sajiwan who was really trying to assert his lawful right against
G
H
the complainant who was a· trespasser.
The appellant was fighting
for a just and righteous cause though not in a strictly lawful manner.
If the appellant had succeeded he would have been able to secure the.
right over the Chak Road which was left by the Revenue authorities
for the benefit of the villagers. . These considerations, therefore, may
weigh with the Government for considering the question of remitting
a portion of the sentence imposed on the appellant Ram Sajiwan and
the learned counsel appearing for the State has assured us that these
considerations would be conveyed to the Government.
So
far · as
the otlier appellants are coocerned, as the object of diil appellants
was merely to assert a supposed or bona fide claim of right, i~ cannot
· be said that they had any common intention to cause grievous hurt.
In these circumstances, therefore, the charge under ss. 326/34 I.P.C.
must necessarily fail.
The conviction under s. ·447 • I.P.C. as also
that under ss. 324/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. cannot be interfered with
in view of the evidence of assault made by the appellants on the .
'
)
RAM RATTAN v. u. P. STATE (Fazal Ali, !.)
239
witnesses Ram Khelawan, Manohar, Sarabjit, Mewa Lal, Satrohan
A
with their resp~ctive weapons.
Having regard to the fact that the
appellants made a concerted attack either with a Biroo or lathis respectively on the aforesaid prosecution witnesses they had undoubtedly
a common intention to cause simple hurt to these witnesses.
For these reasons, therefore, we would affirm the convictions and
sentences passed on the appellant Ram Sajiwan but allow the appeal
B
of the other appellants viz. Ram Rattan and.Ram Samujh to this extent
that their convictions and sentences under ss. 326/34 I.P.C. are set
aside, but their convictions and sentences under ss. 324/34, 323/34
and 447 I.P.C. will stand. If the appellants have already served out
their ~entences they may be released.
M.R.
Appeal dismissed.
'