The Allahabad High Court has partly allowed a criminal appeal arising from a 1984 village clash over agricultural land, acquitting four women accused after finding no clear evidence of their participation in the assault. However, the Court upheld the conviction of two surviving male appellants, holding that the prosecution had proved their involvement beyond reasonable doubt while continuing the benefit of probation granted by the trial court.
The dispute stemmed from rival claims over agricultural land in Lalitpur district. According to the prosecution, the accused began harvesting a maize crop allegedly cultivated by the complainant's family, leading to a violent confrontation in which several people were injured. The case also involved a cross-case filed by the opposite side, where two persons from the accused's side later died, making the incident a long-standing dispute between both groups.
The appellants argued that the prosecution witnesses gave contradictory statements and that the complainant's side was the aggressor. They contended that they acted only in self-defence during the clash and that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence.
The State, on the other hand, maintained that the eyewitness accounts were supported by medical evidence. It argued that the accused had unlawfully harvested the crop and assaulted the complainant's party when they objected, making the conviction legally justified.
The High Court noted that the incident was admittedly a cross-case and observed that the evidence did not clearly establish which side had sown the crop or who was the initial aggressor. Since ownership and possession over the disputed crop remained uncertain, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the complainant alone had the right to defend the property. It observed that "when it is not clear from evidence which party was the aggressor, then it would be deemed that it was a free fight," making each participant responsible only for his or her own acts.
Examining the testimony against the surviving women appellants, the Court found that even prosecution witnesses admitted they were merely present at the spot and were not seen assaulting anyone. There was also no evidence that they shared a common object with the other accused. Accordingly, the Court extended them the benefit of doubt. However, it found specific evidence proving the involvement of Bhajan Lal and Ramanand in the assault.
The High Court set aside the conviction of four women appellants and acquitted them, observing that they were entitled to the benefit of doubt. At the same time, it dismissed the appeal filed by Bhajan Lal and Ramanand, affirming their conviction. Since they had earlier been released on probation, the Court directed them to appear before the trial court and execute fresh bonds for maintaining good conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act.
Case Title: Babu and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1524 of 1988
