Prayagraj: Observing that in a free fight each person is responsible for their own act, the Allahabad high court acquitted four women while upholding the conviction of two men in a 1984 land dispute clash. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish which side was the aggressor.Justice Sanjiv Kumar made the observation while allowing in part an appeal against the June 1988 judgment of the additional sessions judge/special judge (EC Act), Lalitpur.An FIR was lodged by Mannu Lal on Sept 20, 1984, alleging that the accused side had forcibly started harvesting the crop on a disputed 6.45-acre land parcel at Nazarbagh Kunwa in Basatguwan village. According to the prosecution, an altercation broke out between the two sides, leading to a clash in which both parties used lathis and sickles. Members of both sides sustained injuries.The clash also resulted in the deaths of two persons from the accused side — Zalim and Bhagirath — following which a cross-case under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC was registered against 15 persons from the informant’s side. In 1988, the trial court convicted 12 accused persons and released them on probation for good conduct for one year.Challenging their conviction, the accused approached the high court in 1988. During the pendency of the appeal, six appellants died. It survived for the remaining six appellants — four women and two men.Considering the evidence on record, the HC noted that litigation over the disputed land was already pending between the two parties and the prosecution had failed to establish which side was the aggressor or who had sown the maize crop on the disputed land.The court held that since the prosecution could not establish that the disputed land or crop belonged to the informant’s side, the plea of the right to private defence of property was not available. “When it is not clear from the evidence which party was the aggressor, then it would be deemed to be a free fight. In a case of free fight, each person or party is responsible for its own act,” the court observed.Regarding the roles attributed to the four surviving women appellants, the court noted discrepancies in the testimonies of four prosecution witnesses. It pointed out that although the women were present at the spot, the prosecution’s own injured witnesses admitted during cross-examination that they neither picked up weapons nor assaulted anyone.“None of the women assaulted anyone, and it was both parties who were assaulting each other. Thus, there is no clear evidence that accused-appellants participated in the crime. There is also no evidence that they shared any common object with the other co-accused. Therefore, they deserve the benefit of doubt,” the judge ruled.Consequently, in its July 21 judgment, the high court set aside their conviction and acquitted them of all charges.However, with regard to the two surviving male appellants — Bhajan Lal and Ramanand — the court found specific and reliable ocular evidence establishing their active participation in the clash. Upholding their conviction, the high court directed them to appear before the trial court within one month to execute bonds for maintaining good behaviour on probation for one year.
