Conviction Upheld for Active Participants in Free Fight; Benefit of Doubt Extended to Non-Assaulting Co-Accused

The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, under Sections 147, 323/149, and 324/149 of the IPC and released on probation

The incident occurred on 20.09.1984 regarding a dispute over harvesting a maze crop on 6.45 acres of land

Both parties sustained injuries during the clash; two individuals from the appellants' side (Bhagirath and Zalim) were killed, resulting in a cross-case against the informants

The Appellants claimed they acted in self-defense, asserting they were the rightful owners/possessors of the land

During the pendency of the appeal, six appellants died, and the appeal abated as to them

1. Whether the appellants were the aggressors or whether they acted in the valid exercise of the right of private defense during a free fight

2. Whether the evidence established the active participation and common object of the female appellants (Smt. Badi Bahu and others) in the commission of the offence

The court applied Section 147 (Rioting), Section 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) read with Section 149 (Common object) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

It also applied the evidentiary principle concerning "free fights," where each person is responsible for their individual acts when the aggressor cannot be clearly determined

Furthermore, it utilized Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1968, regarding the release of offenders on good conduct

The court observed that while the incident was undisputed, the prosecution failed to conclusively prove which party had sown the crop or owned the land, thereby neutralizing claims of private defense of property

Since both parties were armed and engaged in mutual assault, the court categorized the incident as a "free fight," making each participant liable for their specific actions

Upon reviewing ocular testimony, the court found that witnesses (P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.7) failed to attribute any specific overt acts or shared common object to the female appellants (Appellants 7, 10, 11, and 12), noting they did not use weapons

Conversely, the roles of appellants Bhajan Lal (No. 4) and Ramanand (No. 6) were clearly established through consistent ocular evidence corroborated by medical reports showing injuries to the informants

The court upheld the conviction of Bhajan Lal and Ramanand but directed that they be released on executing bonds for good behavior for one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act