Self-defence: HC acquits gang accused of causing serious injuries to three

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: Three persons convicted by a trial court for causing serious injuries to three fellow villagers have been released by the High Court after it found that their act was in selfdefense.

The victims also happened to be relatives of the accused. All three accused ; Nagesh, Ramakrishna and Jayarama are children of Thimmegowda. There was a dispute over seven acres of property between Thimmegowda and his brother.

In 2006, a civil court ruled that the property belonged to Thimmegowda and his children. His brother’s children were, however cultivating the land. Nagesh, Ramakrishna and Jayarama are accused of attacking them and causing serious injuries to them.

“The trial court and the appellate court have failed to consider the right of private defense. It is a settled principle of law that, even if the accused does not plead self defence, it is open to the court to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record,” the HC said.

The HC said that a plea of self defence can extend to voluntarily causing death. “The said right of private defence lays down the limits. Sometimes even it can extend up to causing voluntary causing of death. However, the accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to him.,” the HC said.

The three accused were convicted by a trial court in 2008 and this was upheld by a District court in 2013. They challenged it in the HC, and the judgement on it was passed in October 2022. “The disputed land belonged to Thimmegowda, who is the father of the three accused. They are the owners of the property after a civil case went in their favour in 2006. The alleged victims have illegally entered into the land and started cultivating it. The accused in order to protect the property asked them to refrain from illegal cultivation, then the altercation followed. The accused are not the aggressors, therefore their right to defence should have been protected by the Trial Court.,” on their behalf, senior advocate Hasmath Pasha argued.

The HC in its judgment said, “On careful perusal of the concurrent findings of the conviction, it is very clear that both the courts have failed to apply the mind in proper perspective.”The HC noted that the accused were acquitted on the charges of trespassing.

“If the accused No.1 to 3 are not the trespassers, the cause for the quarrel may not arise. It is an admitted fact that the land where the alleged incident had taken place is in dispute,” it said. Quashing the conviction, the HC said, “Due weightage has to be given to the facts and circumstances and hyper technical approach has to be avoided in considering what happens on the spur of moment on the spot and keeping in view the normal human reaction and the conduct, where self-preservation is the paramount consideration.”