PURAN SINGH & ORS. vs STATE OF PUNJAB

The Supreme Court held that the appellants, convicted under Section 302 and Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC, could not claim the right of private defense as they were not in settled possession of the disputed land. The Court clarified that settled possession requires effective, undisturbed possession known to the true owner, and that the trespasser must have grown crops to establish such possession. The High Court's interpretation was found to be incorrect, leading to the appeal being allowed and the convictions being overturned.