Allahabad HC Acquits Four Women Accused in 1984 Crop-Dispute Assault, Upholds Conviction of Two Male Appellants After 38-Year Appeal

Justice Sanjiv Kumar partly allowed a 1988 criminal appeal, acquitting four women for want of participation evidence while affirming conviction of Bhajan Lal and Ramanand under the free-fight doctrine.

A criminal appeal filed in 1988 against a conviction arising from a violent land-and-crop dispute in Lalitpur district finally reached its end at the Allahabad High Court on 21 July 2026. Justice Sanjiv Kumar, sitting singly, partly allowed Babu and Others v. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1524 of 1988). Four women appellants were acquitted because no witness could establish that they had taken part in the assault. Two surviving male appellants — Bhajan Lal and Ramanand — had their convictions affirmed. The court applied the free-fight doctrine to the broader question of aggression, but drew a clean evidential line between those who could be shown to have struck blows and those who were merely present at the scene.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The appeal arose from a judgment dated 14 June 1988 passed by Sri S.S. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lalitpur, in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 1986. The trial court had convicted twelve accused persons under Section 147 IPC (rigorous imprisonment of three months), Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC (rigorous imprisonment of three months), and Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC (rigorous imprisonment of six months). Instead of immediately sending them to prison, the trial court released all of them on probation for one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The underlying incident took place on 20 September 1984. First informant Mannu Lal, resident of Village Basatguwa, Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur, lodged an FIR at 17:35 hours on that date. He stated that a registered sale deed dated 28 December 1981 had conveyed 6.45 acres of land at Nazarbagh Kunwa to him and his four brothers. After the death of the original vendor Kalle, the accused side disputed the sale. Revenue proceedings followed before the Tehsil and the Commissioner at Jhansi, and eventually the land was recorded in the name of Nanki, wife of Kalle. Mannu Lal's appeal before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Taalbehat, was pending at the time of the incident.

On the morning of 20 September 1984, while Mannu Lal's standing maize crop was on the land, the accused party began harvesting it. When Mannu Lal and his brothers Jagat Singh, Sukh Dayal, Rati Ram, and Lakkhi objected, the accused claimed the land as their own and commenced an assault with lathis and sickles. Co-villagers Harlal Yadav, Ram Chandey Yadav, and Sujan Yadav arrived and rescued the complainant's side. Both sides sustained injuries. Notably, Bhagirath from the accused side died of his injuries the same evening at 18:45 hours, and Zalim also died, giving rise to a cross-case under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 IPC against fifteen persons from the complainant's party.

By the time the High Court heard the matter, six of the twelve original appellants — Babu, Puttu, Halkey, Baijnath, Smt. Ram Dulari, and Smt. Sanjhli Bahu wife of Puttu — had died during the appeal's pendency. By an order dated 4 November 2025, the appeal stood abated against them. Six appellants remained: Bhajan Lal, Ramanand, Smt. Badi Bahu alias Kanchan Devi, Smt. Sanjhli Bahu wife of Bhajan Lal, Smt. Manjhli Bahu wife of Baijnath, and Smt. Manjhli Bahu wife of Zalim.

The Prosecution Evidence and the Cross-Case

The prosecution examined eight witnesses. P.W.1 Mannu Lal (first informant and eyewitness) and P.W.2 Lakkhi (injured witness) both supported the prosecution version. P.W.3 Meghraj, who scribed the FIR, was not present at the incident. P.W.4 Dr. K.C. Gupta prepared the injury report of Lakkhi, recording two deep incised wounds on the left forearm consistent with a sickle. The same doctor also examined Bhagirath and Puttu from the accused side: Bhagirath had a serious contusion over the skull and was unconscious on examination; he died later that evening. Dr. Gupta stated that Bhagirath's injuries were sufficient to cause death. P.W.5 Dr. N.L. Mahajan examined Sukh Dayal, Jagat Singh, and Mannu Lal, finding lathi injuries on each; he noted that injuries to Sukh Dayal's head and certain head injuries on Mannu Lal were dangerous in nature.

P.W.7 Sujan, an eyewitness who arrived after hearing the commotion, confirmed that both parties were beating each other. He acknowledged being an accused in the cross-case. P.W.8, Investigating Officer S.I. Narendra Pal Singh, confirmed that he had also investigated the cross-case filed by accused Babu under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 IPC, and had filed a charge-sheet against fifteen persons from the complainant's side. He stated that in the cross-case investigation he found that Bhagirath and others had arrived at Nazarbagh carrying lathis, axes, and ballams.

The defence examined D.W.1 Hannu, who claimed the complainant's side arrived armed and struck first, with Meghraj and Lakkhi using an axe on Zalim and Jagat Singh striking with a ballam.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Sanjiv Kumar identified two analytical questions. First, which party had sown the maize crop and therefore had a right of private defence of property. Second, which party started the assault.

On the first question, the court found that both sides had made claims to the disputed land and that the prosecution's documentary evidence showed only that litigation was pending between the parties. There was no clear evidence establishing that the crop on the disputed land had been sown by the complainant's side. The court therefore held that the right of private defence of property did not arise in this case for either party.

On the second question — who was the aggressor — the court found the evidence equally opaque. The prosecution witnesses said the accused began beating them after they objected to the harvesting. The defence witness said the complainant's armed party struck first. Given this conflict, the court applied the free-fight doctrine: “In case of free fight each person/party is responsible for its act.” The accused could not claim private defence, but equally, the prosecution had to prove individual participation to establish guilt.

The court then examined the evidence against the four surviving women appellants. P.W.2 Lakkhi, the injured witness, stated in terms that the women present did not pick up lathis and he did not see them commit any assault. P.W.7 Sujan also said the women were present but he did not see any of them cause an injury. P.W.1 Mannu Lal gave no clear statement attributing any assault to the women. There was also no evidence that the women shared any common object with the male accused so as to attract liability under Section 149 IPC.

The position differed for Bhajan Lal and Ramanand. The court found specific prosecution evidence of their participation in the assault. Their convictions were therefore supported by the record.

The court noted that the trial court had erred in not appreciating the lack of individual evidence against the four women and had wrongly convicted them along with the others.

Treatment of the Probation Order

The trial court in 1988 had sentenced all convicts but released them on probation for one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act rather than sending them to prison immediately. The High Court, while affirming the convictions of Bhajan Lal and Ramanand, upheld this approach. Since both men are currently on bail, the High Court directed them to appear before the trial court within one month and, instead of serving the sentence, to execute bonds as directed by the trial court for maintaining good behaviour — giving them the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for maintaining good conduct for one year.

Outcome

The appeal was partly allowed. Smt. Badi Bahu alias Kanchan Devi, Smt. Sanjhli Bahu wife of Bhajan Lal, Smt. Manjhli Bahu wife of Baijnath, and Smt. Manjhli Bahu wife of Zalim were acquitted of all offences under Sections 147 and 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court's judgment against them was set aside. All four are on bail; they are not required to surrender, their personal and surety bonds were cancelled, and their sureties were discharged.

The appeal was dismissed as against Bhajan Lal and Ramanand. Their convictions and sentences under the trial court's judgment dated 14 June 1988 in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 1986 were affirmed. They were directed to appear before the trial court within one month to execute bonds as required under the probation order. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court with the trial record for compliance.