New Delhi:
The Delhi High Court has acquitted a couple, who were awarded life imprisonment for allegedly killing their neighbour over a property dispute 18 years ago, noting that the accused had acted in self defence.
A bench of Justices Anil Kumar and S L Bhayana, after going through all evidence, came to the conclusion that the victim, along with others, had illegally trespassed into the property of the accused who were forced to act in order to save themselves.
Setting aside their conviction, the court accepted the contention of couple's advocate Ritu Gauba who had submitted that the accused had used canes on the victim in order to save themselves from the attack launched on them.
"Where an individual citizen and his property is faced with danger and immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available, the individual citizen is entitled to protect himself and his property and in the circumstances the individual citizen is entitled to use violence to defend himself and his property," the bench said.
Jai Singh and his wife Savitri Devi were sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court in October, 2001. They were alleged to have taken victim Rakesh to their house at Samaypur Badli here and killed him in October 1992, as both the parties were having a running dispute over an adjacent land.
"It is not that there was no reason for the deceased to attack the appellants but it has been admitted and established that the land adjacent to their respective house was the bone of contention between the two," the court said.
The accused took a stand before the court that they themselves were attacked by the deceased and two of his friends who were bad characters and were later killed by the police in encounter. They also pleaded that they had only used canes in the quarrel while the deceased and friends were armed with firearms.
"If the appellants used lathis to protect themselves against the attack on them with the fire arms, jelly or such sharp-edged weapon and lathis, the use of lathis by the appellants cannot be termed to be unduly disproportionate and cannot be termed to have exceeded their legitimate purpose. From the facts of the case, it is also inevitable to infer that the right of the appellants to private defence was not vindictive or malicious." the court said.
"Taking all these factors into consideration on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, it can be inferred that the deceased with his accomplices had trespassed into the property of the appellants and had attacked them," the court added, absolving the couple.
A bench of Justices Anil Kumar and S L Bhayana, after going through all evidence, came to the conclusion that the victim, along with others, had illegally trespassed into the property of the accused who were forced to act in order to save themselves.
Setting aside their conviction, the court accepted the contention of couple's advocate Ritu Gauba who had submitted that the accused had used canes on the victim in order to save themselves from the attack launched on them.
"Where an individual citizen and his property is faced with danger and immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available, the individual citizen is entitled to protect himself and his property and in the circumstances the individual citizen is entitled to use violence to defend himself and his property," the bench said.
Jai Singh and his wife Savitri Devi were sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court in October, 2001. They were alleged to have taken victim Rakesh to their house at Samaypur Badli here and killed him in October 1992, as both the parties were having a running dispute over an adjacent land.
"It is not that there was no reason for the deceased to attack the appellants but it has been admitted and established that the land adjacent to their respective house was the bone of contention between the two," the court said.
The accused took a stand before the court that they themselves were attacked by the deceased and two of his friends who were bad characters and were later killed by the police in encounter. They also pleaded that they had only used canes in the quarrel while the deceased and friends were armed with firearms.
"If the appellants used lathis to protect themselves against the attack on them with the fire arms, jelly or such sharp-edged weapon and lathis, the use of lathis by the appellants cannot be termed to be unduly disproportionate and cannot be termed to have exceeded their legitimate purpose. From the facts of the case, it is also inevitable to infer that the right of the appellants to private defence was not vindictive or malicious." the court said.
"Taking all these factors into consideration on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, it can be inferred that the deceased with his accomplices had trespassed into the property of the appellants and had attacked them," the court added, absolving the couple.
Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world
