CASE NAME	Akonti Bora And Anr. v. The State Of Assam, 1980 CRI LJ 138
CITATION	1980 CRI LJ 138
COURT	Guahati High Court
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice K. Lahiri
PETITIONER	Akonti Bora And Another
RESPONDENT	The State Of Assam
DECIDED ON	6th March 1979

 

INTRODUCTION

The Gauhati High Court’s March 6, 1979, ruling in the case of Akonti Bora and Anr. vs. The State of Assam deals with the use of Indian law’s right to private property defense. The appellants, Akonti Bora and Gathi Bora, were charged with mischief after destroying a shack built by Purna, who had previously been evicted from the property. The main question was whether the appellants’ acts were permitted by the right to private defense in light of Purna’s construction of the shack after the previous dispossession.

The appellants argued that Purna’s building of the shack was illegal and against the rulings of the appropriate courts and that their acts were a valid exercise of their right to defend their legitimate possession of the land. They maintained that they were entitled to remove trespassers’ constructions or encroachments because they were the land’s legitimate owners. The court looked at the supporting documentation and the laws pertaining to the right to private property defense. It took into account whether the appellants had other legal options and if their conduct was appropriate and required to safeguard their property. The court also assessed the witnesses’ reliability and the coherence of their statements.

According to the court’s ruling, the appellants’ acts were appropriate in light of their right to private property defense. It concluded that Purna, who had been evicted and lacked the legal authority to build the hut, had the right to have the illegal construction taken down by the appellants. The court stressed that the appellants’ conduct was within the law and a fair response to the illegal intrusion.

This case makes clear the conditions under which the right to private defense can be used and emphasizes how crucial it is to safeguard legitimate property holding. The idea that people have the right to protect their property against unauthorized interference is reaffirmed, stressing the need to strike a balance between individual rights and the necessity to stop illegal encroachments.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The prosecution’s argument is that Purna is the rightful owner of the land and has legal title to it. Since 1966, as many as three cases have been under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In each of these proceedings, the accused was declared to be in possession of the land. Purna was also involved in one of the legal processes against the accused. There is no doubt that the Magistrate ruled in favor of the accused in the proceedings, determining that the accused had the right to hold the land in question until they were evicted in accordance with the law. The Magistrate further prohibited any interference with that possession until the eviction took place. Purna asserts that, despite the declaration of possession and the prohibitory order that the Magistrate issued, he continued to possess the land in violation of the lawful order that the Courts issued. He also plowed the land, which is the subject matter of the proceeding, and built a shanty that is worth hardly Rs. 100/-.  He claimed that the accused lit his shanty on fire in front of everyone on November 9, 1972, around 6 p.m. when they were part of an unlawful assembly. 

The Assistant Sessions Judge did not trust the prosecution’s case on rioting, burning, and unlawful assembly. However, the petitioners were found guilty of a charge under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for forcibly pushing Purna from the land. The Assistant Sessions Judge additionally convicted the defendants Under Section 427/34 I. P. C. for damaging the hut. The petitioners would rather have an appeal. The learned Sessions Judge has found the petitioners not guilty of the accusations under Section 323/34. The Assistant Sessions Judge determined that no harm was inflicted upon Purna and that no charges had been filed against the petitioners in relation to this matter. 

ISSUES RAISED

Is it illegal to dismantle or throw out property in a situation like that, where trespassers make illegal encroachments and erect structures to destroy or demolish a party’s valid title or interest?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner

The petitioners’ learned counsel, Mr. P.K. Goswami, has argued that the courts below have acted illegally and without jurisdiction in this case by relying on a small portion of the prosecution’s case while rejecting the larger and more significant portion. The learned judge has stated that the witnesses’ testimony was intended to deceive the petitioners by inflating the prosecution’s case.

The petitioners’ experienced counsel, Mr. P. K. Goswami, has argued properly so that the learned Sessions Judge could not deny the petitioners’ claim to possession of the land. Counsel argues that it is evident from the learned Sessions Judge’s own conclusions that he did not deny the petitioners’ claim.

‘Might have’ or ‘appears’ statements constitute the basis for the petitioners’ conviction; the accused’s guilt is not conclusively established.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent

According to Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the appellants committed mischief when they forcibly removed Purna from the property and destroyed his shack. There was no legal justification or requirement for this illegal eviction or property destruction.

The prosecution argued that the right to private defense did not apply to the appellants’ activities. They contended that because the land was not in the appellants’ legal control at the time of the occurrence, they lacked the legal right to take Purna’s shanty down.

The prosecution emphasized inconsistencies in the defense’s evidence, especially concerning the appellants’ allegation of past land dispossession. They said the defense’s explanation for their behavior was not credible because of these inconsistencies.

JUDGMENT

If someone is unlawfully and wrongly blocking the legitimate owner from entering his home by installing a lock, that person has the right to break the lock and enter the home. If he does, it is considered a righteous act to prevent an unlawful act, and he is not held accountable for mischief if the lock is broken. In this case, the accused had the legal right to demolish or remove the construction or debris since they really believed they were in lawful possession of it and it constituted trespass or illegal intrusion. 

The trespasser may be ejected; that much is certain. It would be equally accurate to state that the person who is legally in possession of the land has the authority to “dispossess” the trespasser or the symbolic items they placed there, if any are placed there throughout the trespassing process. Purna had committed an offense by putting in the materials and/or erecting the shack in an unlawful or improper manner, as well as against the lawful directives of the courts. They had the right to do so even if the accused had destroyed the materials or structures or otherwise harmed or damaged them. In the present scenario, the necessary information or purpose was noticeably lacking. An accused person’s sincere actions cannot be considered an offense. The petitioners rejected the act of trespassing Purna, which was considered an offense in the eyes of the law. They acted in asserting the rights granted to them by legitimate court orders. Additionally, in this perspective, there is no conviction I. P. C. can be upheld under Section 427 read in conjunction with Section 34.

CONCLUSION

The Gauhati High Court examined how Indian law applied the right to private property protection in Akonti Bora and Anr. vs. The State of Assam (1979). Akonti and Gathi Bora, the appellants, were charged with destroying a Purna-built cottage on property they claimed. The main question was whether the appellants’ acts were permitted by the right to private defense in light of Purna’s construction of the shack after the previous dispossession.

The court assessed the evidence and legal framework pertaining to the right of private defense of property. It considered whether the appellants had other legal options and if their conduct was appropriate and required to safeguard their property. The court also evaluated the witnesses’ reliability and the coherence of their statements.

The Gauhati High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant’s conduct was appropriate in light of their right to private property defense. It concluded that Purna, who had been evicted and lacked the legal authority to build the hut, had the right to take down the illegal construction by the appellants. The court stressed that the appellants’ conduct was within the law and a fair response to the unlawful intrusion.

This case clarifies the conditions under which the right to private defense can be used and emphasizes how crucial it is to safeguard legitimate property holding. The idea that people have the right to protect their property against unauthorized interference is reaffirmed, emphasizing the need to balance individual rights and the need to stop illegal encroachments.