1. Forest officer shot and killed a person during patrol — Allegations of murder and planting evidence — Conviction under Sections 302, 203 IPC and Forest/Arms Acts. (Para 3 , 4 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 261
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay Manohar Sapre, R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.
Sukumaran – Appellant(s)
Versus
State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2009
Decided on : 07-03-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
A person having a reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt could be caused to him or his companion, he can resort to private defence.
A person having a reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt could be caused to him or his companion, he can resort to private defence.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
ARMS ACT: S.25(1)(b)(a)
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.97, S.302, S.203, S.304 Part II
TAMIL NADU FOREST ACT: S.36(a)
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.97, S.302, S.203, S.304 Part II
TAMIL NADU FOREST ACT: S.36(a)
Headnote
(a) Criminal trial – Evidence – Four eye witnesses turning hostile – Prosecution not leading any other evidence as to how and in what manner, the incident occurred – Prosecution failing to prove their case. (Para 25, 26)
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 97 – Right to private defence – Appellant having reasonable grounds for apprehending that death or grievous hurt would be caused to him or his driver – Held, appellant as a Forest Ranger on duty was entitled to use his gun against the deceased party in private defence. (Para 38, 46)
AIR 1952 SC 165; (2010) 2 SCC 333 – Relied upon
(c) Criminal jurisprudence – Prosecution failing to proving the main case u/s 302 IPC – Offence u/s 203 must also fail – More so in absence of any evidence in support of offence u/s 203. (Para 49)
Facts of the case:
The trial court convicted the appellant herein for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 203 IPC, Section 36-A and E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 302 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months under Section 203 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 7,500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months under Section 36-A and E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, to undergo imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 500/-in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 3 read with Section 25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act.
The appellant filed criminal appeal in the High Court.
The High Court allowed the appeal in part and while setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 302 IPC altered it to Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine amount of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was, however, acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 36-A and E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and was also acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 25 (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act.
Finding of the Court:
A person having a reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt could be caused to him or his companion, he can resort to private defence.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
- offences against the person
- offences against public justice
- special laws
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr.Subarish Subramanian, Adv. Mr.A.Rajarajan, Adv. Mr.Y.William Vinoth Kumar, Adv. Mr.R.Pandia Rajan, Adv. Mr.Deepak Anand, AOR,
For the Respondent: Mr.Balaji Srinivasan, AAG Mr.B.Vinodh Kanna B., Adv. Mr.M.Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr.S.Partha Sarathi, Adv.
For the Appellant : Mr.Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr.Subarish Subramanian, Adv. Mr.A.Rajarajan, Adv. Mr.Y.William Vinoth Kumar, Adv. Mr.R.Pandia Rajan, Adv. Mr.Deepak Anand, AOR,
For the Respondent: Mr.Balaji Srinivasan, AAG Mr.B.Vinodh Kanna B., Adv. Mr.M.Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr.S.Partha Sarathi, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt — Whether the appellant was justified in exercising the right of private defence. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. Prosecution failed to prove the incident as key witnesses turned hostile — Appellant established reasonable apprehension of danger justifying the use of force in self-defence. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 )
4. Right of private defence is available when there is reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, regardless of the exact point of impact of the shot. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 46 )
5. Appeal allowed — Convictions under Sections 304 Part II and 203 IPC set aside — Appellant acquitted of all charges. (Para 22 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 )
6. What are the general principles governing the right of private defence under the Indian Penal Code?
The right is available to those suddenly confronted with impending danger, not self-created. A reasonable apprehension of offence is sufficient; actual commission is not required. Force used must not be wholly disproportionate to the protection required. (Para 33 , 34 )
7. When is a person justified in causing death in the exercise of the right of private defence?
A person may inflict harm, including death, when they are in imminent and reasonable danger of losing their life or limb, or when there is a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. (Para 33 , 34 , 46 )
8. Does the fact that a bullet hit the deceased in the back automatically negate the right of private defence?
No. The exercise of the right of private defence must be examined considering the entire background and circumstances of the incident, rather than focusing solely on the point of impact. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 )
9. Does an accused need to prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt?
No, the accused is not required to prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 34 )
10. When does a conviction under Section 203 IPC fail in the context of a primary offence?
If the prosecution fails to prove the main case and the accused successfully establishes a plea of self-defence, a conviction for giving false information under Section 203 IPC is not sustainable without independent evidence. (Para 48 , 49 )
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 12.06.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 513 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.
2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts infra.
3. The appellant herein (A-1) along with co-accused- Chinnakolandai (A-2) were tried for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 109 and 203 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), Section 36-A and E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and Section 3 read with Section 25 (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri in Session Case No. 342/2004.
4. By Judgment/order dated 17.05.2006, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant herein(A-1) for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 203 IPC, Section 36-A and E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 302 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months under Section 203 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 7,500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months under Section 36-A and E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, to undergo imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 500/-in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 3 read with Section 25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act.
5. All the awarded sentences were to run concurrently. So far as Co-accused-Chinnakolandai (A-2) is concerned, he was acquitted from all the charges.
6. The appellant (A-1) felt aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed against him and filed criminal appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. So far as the order acquitting co-accused- Chinnakonlandai (A-2) was concerned, the State did not file any appeal against that part of the order and hence the order of acquittal of co-accused- Chinnakolandai (A-2) became final.
7. The High Court, by the impugned order, allowed the appeal in part and while setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 302 IPC altered it to Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine amount of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was, however, acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 36-A and E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and was also acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 25 (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act. However, the High Court did not consider the case of the appellant so far as his conviction under Section 203 IPC is concerned. The State has not filed any appeal against that part of the order by which the appellant was acquitted from the charges as detailed above.
8. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part-II IPC and was, therefore, justified in awarding rigorous imprisonment for five years.
9. In other words, the question to be considered in this appeal is whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304 part II of IPC.
10. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to take note of the prosecution case in brief infra.
11. The appellant (A-1) was working as Forest Range Officer in State Services
