EMPEROR Vs. GOPALRAO VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lower Court of appeal observes that all the witnesses agree in stating that the accused 1 and 2 were not only on the land but they even rushed at the complainant to assault him in co-operation with accused 5 and 6, and that as regards accused 5, he is evidently the chief actor and aggressor. And from that evidence the Court has inferred the petitioner's guilt. That Court finds that the manner in which the petitioner entered on the land in company with eight persons disguised as his tenants or labourers and over-awed the complainant and bullied him and his workmen and tried to expel them shows, that his object was to acquire possession of the land from the complainant by insult and annoyance.

(2.) That undoubtedly is an inference of fact which there is evidence to substantiate. We see no error of law to justify us in disturbing that finding. It may be that accused No. 5 has an interest in the property as joint owner, and that he is entitled to possession. And it may be contended on the authority of

(3.) Leigh V/s. Jack (1879) 49 L.J.Q.B. 220, that he is entitled to have that possession restored to him in a Civil Court. But nevertheless a person with a right is not justified in taking the law into his own hands and if he does he becomes liable for criminal trespass.