Last Updated:
The Supreme Court has held that the right of private defence cannot be weighed in a golden scale and must be judged from the standpoint of a reasonable person
The SC bench considered the principle governing the right of private defence as mentioned in Darshan Singh case to accept the plea of private defence raised by the appellant. (File/PTI)
The Supreme Court has said the right of private defence cannot be weighed in a golden scale and the approach of the court should not be pedantic in such cases as it should be seen from the point of view of a common and reasonable person.
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh set free a medical practitioner, awarded life term sentence under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, for shooting down a man by snatching the assailant’s pistol, resulting in his death.
Recommended Stories
“When an attack is sought to be made on the accused-appellant by a person, who goes to the place of the accused, armed with a pistol and thereafter, shoots him on his head causing injury, there is no way the accused person would apply his rational mind in exercising his right of private defence,” the bench said.
Appellant, Rakesh Dutt Sharma was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Trial Court, upon examining the evidence available on record, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder with the intention of causing death or causing bodily injury likely to cause death) of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
On appeal, the conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High Court.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached before the apex court.
According to the facts of the matter, the appellant was a medical practitioner. There was enmity between the appellant and the deceased over a money transaction. The deceased, armed with a pistol, went to the clinic of the appellant and shot him. Thereafter, the appellant snatched the pistol from the deceased and shot him down. Both the appellant and the deceased registered FIRs against each other.
As the deceased had died, the FIR registered against him was closed and the appellant was charged for the offence.
His counsel submitted that even if the version of the prosecution is taken as such, it would only be a case of exercise of right of private defence by the appellant.
He said, the nature of the injury suffered would be insignificant and the right of private defence cannot be calculated with arithmetical precision.
The counsel submitted the appellant ought not to have been charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and in any case, the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC is also not made out.
In support of his submissions, the counsel placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another, (2010).
On the contrary, the state counsel contended that the post-mortem report of the deceased and the evidence of the doctor showed that it is a case where the right of private defence was exceeded by the appellant. The deceased was shot by the appellant on vital parts which has been duly taken note of by both the courts below.
The court, however, noted, the deceased was the aggressor. He was the one who went to the clinic of the appellant, armed with a pistol and attacked him. Then, the appellant attacked the deceased in retaliation.
The bench considered the principle governing the right of private defence as mentioned in Darshan Singh case to accept the plea of private defence raised by the appellant.
“We have no hesitation in setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and that of the High Court,” the bench said, allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant of all the charges.
The bench cited the principles of private defense summed up in Darshan Singh:
(i) Self-preservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognised by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilised countries. All free, democratic and civilised countries recognise the right of private defence within certain reasonable limits.
(ii) The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger and not of self-creation.
(iii) A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self defence into operation. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be an actual commission of the offence in order to give rise to the right of private defence. It is enough if the accused apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and it is likely to be committed if the right of private defence is not exercised.
(iv) The right of private defence commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension arises and it is co-terminus with the duration of such apprehension.
(v) It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude.
(vi) In private defence the force used by the accused ought not to be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection of the person or property.
(vii) It is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self-defence, it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record.
(viii) The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. (ix) The Indian Penal Code confers the right of private defence only when that unlawful or wrongful act is an offence.
(x) A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened.
About the Author
Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl…Read More
Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl… Read More
September 09, 2025, 17:58 IST
Loading comments…
Read More
