Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) LEARNED Government Advocate has received notice. Both the counsels for the applicant and the State are agreed that the revision be finally decided today.
(2.) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 324 IPC. He was sentenced to one years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- by the Trial Court. THE appellate court has reduced the sentence of imprisonment to six months' R. I. and fine to Rs. 100/- The prosecution case, in brief, was that there were adjoining fields belonging to the complainant and the accused. Both the parties were grazing their cattle and there was an exchange of hot words. The complainant asked the accused Ram Suhawan to drive away the cattle from the field which the complainant claimed to be his. The accused protested and ultimately thrust a Selha (spear) into the abdomen of the complainant. On the arrival of witnesses the accused ran away. First Information Report was lodged and the injury of the complainant was examined by Dr. S. C. Misra the same evening. He found a stab wound 1/2" x 1/4" x abodminal cavity deep on the right side of abdomen, and prepared the injury report Ex. Ka 5. The Trial Court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. In appeal the court below had reconsidered the evidence and has arrived at the same conclusion. No infirmity has been pointed out to enable me to hold that the courts below have committed any error in convicting the accused. Learned counsel contended that the accused had the right of defence of property and the injury was caused in the exercise of that right. In support of this contention he has laid emphasis on the observations in the judgment of the appellate court to the following effect :- "It would also be evident that there was no demarcation at the spot and both the parties appear to have been under some misunderstanding as to the extent of their respective portions at the spot. It is this fact which has led to this occurrence." It is contended that as the portion in which the cattle were grazing was bona fide believed by the accused to be his, he had the right to resist interruption by the complainant, and while exercising his right to protect the property he had the right to cause injury to the complainant.
(3.) THE contention not only has no merit but is fallacious because even if there was some misunderstanding about the extent of the respective portions, the dispute should have been got settled through Civil Court ; the accused could not himself take the decision about his rights and take the law in his own hand. Claim of a right to property is not enough to give any person the right to cause injury to another claimant. In such a case the right to defend cannot include the right to offend. Every drop of human blood is more precious than a claim to acres of land. THE applicant -could not for the purpose of enforcing his claim to property strike a spear blow in the abdomen of his rival. Law does not protect such an action. THE conviction of the applicant, cannot, therefore be held to suffer from any error. As, however, the applicant seems to have been labouring under the belief that the land was his and the complainant was illegally interfering with his right, and the blow had not been repeated, the ends of justice can be met by sentencing the applicant to rigorous imprisonment for three months.;