Prayagraj , The Allahabad High Court has observed that in a free fight, each person involved is responsible for his or her own act, and acquitted four women, while upholding the conviction of two men in a 1984 clash over a land dispute.
Event Context
Passing the verdict, Justice Sanjiv Kumar said, “When it is not clear from the evidence which party was the aggressor in a clash, then it would be deemed that it was a free fight where each person is responsible for their own act.”
The judgment was passed while hearing an appeal filed against the June 1988 verdict of the additional sessions judge in Lalitpur district of Uttar Pradesh.
Consequently, the court, in its judgment dated July 21, set aside their conviction and acquitted them of all charges. However, regarding the two surviving male appellants Bhajan Lal and Ramanand the court found specific and reliable ocular evidence that established their active participation in the clash. Hence, upholding their conviction, the judge directed them to appear before the trial court within a month to execute bonds for maintaining good behaviour on probation.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Team Analysis
The clash also resulted in the deaths of two persons from the convicts’ side Zalim and Bhagirath for which a cross-case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged against 15 people on the informants’ side.
In 1988, the trial court convicted 12 people and released them on probation for a year for good conduct.
Challenging the trial court’s order, the convicts moved the high court in 1988. During the pendency of the appeal, six appellants died and the appeal stood abated in relation to them. The appeal survived for the six remaining appellants four women and two men.
Considering the evidence on record, the high court noted that there was litigation pending between the parties with regard to the disputed land and the prosecution failed to clearly show which party was the aggressor and which party had sown the maze crop on the land.
The court said when it is not established by the prosecution that the disputed land or the crop belonged to the informants’ side, their right of private defence of property does not arise.
“So when it is not clear from the evidence that which party was the aggressor, it would be deemed that it was a free fight. In case of a free fight, each person or party is responsible for its act,” the court observed.
Regarding the roles attributed to the four surviving female appellants, the court noted discrepancies in the testimonies of four prosecution witnesses. It pointed out that while the four women appellants were present at the scene, the prosecution’s own injured witnesses said during the cross-examination that they did not pick up weapons, nor did they commit any assault.
“None of the women assaulted anyone and it was both the parties who were assaulting each other. Thus, there is no clear evidence that accused-appellants Badi Bahu alias Kanchan Devi, Sanjhali Bahu, the wife of Bhajan Lal, Manjhli Bahu, the wife of Baijnath and Manjhali Bahu, the wife of Zalim, participated in the crime. There is also no evidence that they shared any common object with other co-accused. Therefore, they deserve to get the benefit of the doubt,” the judge ruled.
source
According to the facts of the case, an FIR was lodged on a complaint from Mannu Lal on September 20, 1984. It was alleged in the complaint that the convicts forcibly started harvesting the crop on a disputed 6.45-acre land parcel at Nazarbagh Kunwa in Basatguwa village.
According to the prosecution’s case, an altercation led to a clash between the convicts and the informants, involving lathis and sickles. Both sides sustained injuries in the fight.
