2010 Supreme(SC) 73

2010 (1) Supreme 138
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ.
Darshan Singh — Appellants
versus
State of Punjab & Another — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1057 of 2002
Decided on : 15-1-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. In order to find out whether right of private defence is available or not, the injuries received by the accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the injuries caused by the accused and the circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are all relevant factors to be considered.
2. In a case of acquittal, if the trial court’s view is a possible or plausible view, then Appellate Court or High Court would not be justified in interfering with it.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860 – Prosecution of appellant along with his father for causing death of deceased his uncle byinflicting injuries by gandasa and firing shots from licensed gun – Acquittal by Trial Court – Appeal – High Court reversed the trial court’s judgment of acquittal and convicted accused – Appeal – Admittedly, Appellant fired from his 12 – bore double barrel gun which had a number of pellets – High Court disbelieved trial court’s version that prosecution witnesses did not receive fire arm injuries because no pellet or pellets were recovered from their bodies – In the impugned order, High Court without giving any cogent reasons set aside the well considered judgment of trial court – When a shot was fired from a 12 – bore gun and if no pellet was recovered, then the trial court was not wrong in arriving at conclusion that injuries were not caused by a fire arm – High Court on this point discarded reasoning of trial court without any sound basis – While arriving at conclusion, High Court in impugned judgment not followed consistent legal position that High Court or Appellate Court would not be justified in setting aside a judgment of acquittal only on the ground that version given by complainant is more truthful – High Court unnecessarily laid stress on point of recovery of the gun at the instance of appellant-The accused had not denied the incident – The case of defence was that their case was covered by right of private defence – Appellant in his statement under Section 313 had admitted that he had fired from his licensed gun in his right of private defence – High Court without properly comprehending entire evidence on record reversed the well reasoned judgment of trial court- In the instant case after marshalling and scrutinizing entire prosecution evidence, held that trial court’s view was not only possible or plausible view but it was based on correct analysis and evaluation of entire evidence on record – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and judgment of acquittal of trial court restored – The role attributed to appellant being fully covered by his right of private defence he was held liable to be acquitted – Appeal allowed. (Paras 59 to 65)

        Appeal against acquittal – In a case of acquittal, if the trial court’s view is a possible or plausible view, then Appellate Court or High Court would not be justified in interfering with it – It is the settled legal position that there is presumption of innocence and that presumption is further fortified with the acquittal of accused by the trial court – The Appellate Court or the High Court would not be justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal unless it comes to a clear conclusion that judgment of the trial court is utterly perverse and, on the basis of the evidence on record, no other view is plausible or possible than the one taken by the Appellate Court or the High Court. (Para 62)

        Right of private defence – Principles governing – Self – preservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognized by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilized countries – All free, democratic and civilized countries recognize the right of private defence within certain reasonable limits – 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 – A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put right of self defence into operation – 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 accused apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and it is likely to be committed if right of private defence is not exercised – The right of private defence commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension arises and it is co – terminus with the duration of such apprehension – It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude – In private defence the force used by the accused ought not to be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection of person or property – 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 – The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt – 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. (Para 58)

       Facts of the Case :

        Appellant along with his father was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased his uncle byinflicting injuries by gandasa and firing shots from licensed gun. Trial Court acquitted accused persons .On Appeal, High Court reversed the trial court’s judgment of acquittal and convicted accused.

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

       Findings of the Court :

        Admittedly, Appellant fired from his 12-bore double barrel gun which had a number of pellets. High Court disbelieved trial court’s version that prosecution witnesses did not receive fire arm injuries because no pellet or pellets were recovered from their bodies. In the impugned order, High Court without giving any cogent reasons set aside the well considered judgment of trial court. When a shot was fired from a 12-bore gun and if no pellet was recovered, then the trial court was not wrong in arriving at conclusion that injuries were not caused by a fire arm. High Court on this point discarded reasoning of trial court without any sound basis.While arriving at conclusion, High Court in impugned judgment not followed consistent legal position that High Court or Appellate Court would not be justified in setting aside a judgment of acquittal only on the ground that version given by complainant is more truthful. High Court unnecessarily laid stress on point of recovery of the gun at the instance of appellant.The accused had not denied the incident. The case of defence was that their case was covered by right of private defence. Appellant in his statement under Section 313 had admitted that he had fired from his licensed gun in his right of private defence.High Court without properly comprehending entire evidence on record reversed the well reasoned judgment of trial court. In the instant case after marshalling and scrutinizing entire prosecution evidence, held that trial court’s view was not only possible or plausible view but it was based on correct analysis and evaluation of entire evidence on record.Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and judgment of acquittal of trial court restored.The role attributed to appellant being fully covered by his right of private defence he was held liable to be acquitted. Appeal allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.