2009 Supreme(SC) 359

2009(2) Supreme 361
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
State of U.P. — Appellant
versus
Gajey Singh & Another — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1074 of 2001
Decided on : 24-02-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
In order to justify act of causing death of the assailant, accused has simply to satisfy the court that he was faced with an assault which caused a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The question whether the apprehension was reasonable or not is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 r\w 34 – Prosecution of accused persons for causing death of deceased by gun shot injury- Accused persons gave counter version of right of private defence – Conviction by Trial Court – Appeal – Plea of respondents that incident occurred in front of their house and from the evidence on record it was fully established that respondents also sustained injuries including a bone deep injury on skull in the same incident and since these injuries had not been explained by prosecution witnesses, it must be held that prosecution suppressed the genesis and origin of occurrence and the prosecution gave a distorted version – Appeal allowed by High Court accepting contentions of respondents –Appeal – In order to justify act of causing death of the assailant, accused has simply to satisfy the court that he was faced with an assault which caused a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt – The question whether the apprehension was reasonable or not is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be prescribed in this regard. – Instantly circumstances indicated that A1 was assaulted on head by a sharp edged weapon ‘balkati’ causing a bone deep injury – As per the defence version there were four assailants who had come well prepared to assault at the door of their own house – In such a situation accused persons could have a reasonable apprehension of death or at least of grievous hurt – It was a case of single gun shot which was not repeated – Hence, it could not be said that the accused persons had exceeded their right of private defence in any manner – Injury caused on A2 was neither superficial nor of minor nature – Non-explanation of the injuries on A1and A2 created serious doubt about the credibility of prosecution version – View taken by the High Court was certainly a possible and plausible view – No reason to interfere with the impugned judgment – Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 25, 26, 27, 32 to 34)

       Facts of the Case :

       1.Accused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by gun shot injury. Accused persons gave counter version of right of private defence. Trial Court convicted accused persons .Appeal thereagainst by respondents on plea that incident occurred in front of their house and from the evidence on record it was fully established that respondents also sustained injuries including a bone deep injury on skull in the same incident and since these injuries had not been explained by prosecution witnesses, it must be held that prosecution suppressed the genesis and origin of occurrence and prosecution gave a distorted version. Appeal was allowed by High Court accepting contentions of respondents.

       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       Held in order to justify act of causing death of the assailant, accused has simply to satisfy the court that he was faced with an assault which caused a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The question whether the apprehension was reasonable or not is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be prescribed in this regard. Instantly circumstances indicated that A1 was assaulted on head by a sharp edged weapon ‘balkati’ causing a bone deep injury. As per the defence version there were four assailants who had come well prepared to assault at the door of their own house- In such a situation accused persons could have a reasonable apprehension of death or at least of grievous hurt. It was a case of single gun shot which was not repeated. Hence , it could not be said that the accused persons had exceeded their right of private defence in any manner.Injury caused on A2 was neither superficial nor of minor nature. Non-explanation of the injuries on A1and A2 created serious doubt about the credibility of prosecution version. View taken by the High Court was certainly a possible and plausible view. There was no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of High Court. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.