that the complainant party (seven in number) came to
the house as aggressors and the appellant had no option but to fire from ... record to substantiate the argument that
complainant party were the aggressors. It was submitted that the occurrence
took place in the house of the complainant
accused and deceased-
Altercation and assault-Accused receiving injuries-Accused
whether aggressors-Whether entitled to right of private
defence.
HEADNOTE:
The prosecution alleged that there ... assault initially started and which party was the
aggressor, that the prosecution had not explained as to how
the
353
appellants received the injuries
appearing for the appellants argued
that the deceased Ramshiromani Singh was the aggressor, who trespassed
into the property of the appellant with an intention ... appellant is of exhorting to
Appellant No.1 Lala to attack the aggressors, but such exhortation is not
said to be with any common intention
with others came to grab their house, duly armed and they were aggressors and attackers. Hence holding that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable ... which Informant and deceased intended to intrude and take possession. They were aggressors. They assaulted and attacked accused-appellants so as to dispossess them from
Mukhtiar Singh. Avtar Singh, Surjit Singh, Amar Singh sustained injuries by the aggressor Nirpal Singh and his accomplices above stated. Gurcharan Singh had received injuries ... action on the version lodged by us. The complainant party is aggressor who made an attack with different motive on different persons whereas
complainant party (seven in number) came to the house as
6
aggressors and the appellant had no option but to fire from ... record to substantiate
the argument that complainant party were the aggressors. It
was submitted that the occurrence took place in the house of
the complainant
learned trial court was that it held the first party as aggressor. This finding is totally erroneous. The trial court failed to appreciate that ... They had taken the law in their own hands. They were the aggressors and first opened the attack. The trial court has committed serious error
learned trial court was that it held the first party as aggressor. This finding is totally erroneous. The trial court failed to appreciate that ... They had taken the law in their own hands. They were the aggressors and first opened the attack. The trial court has committed serious error
party and further failed to appreciate
that the appellants were not the aggressors but the
complainant party was aggressor. It is also submitted
that ... then in that situation, the appellants could not have
been aggressors and this fact proves the possession of
the appellants over the land in question
Sarabjit Singh, Rohit, Vikas and Tara Devi and that they were the
aggressors. DW-1 PHC Ashok Kumar mainly deposed regarding the
statement of Sarabjit ... Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that
the complainant side was aggressors, therefore, they have given injures on
the head of Sarabjit Singh
