Supreme Court | Uttarakhand Doctor Acquitted in Homicide Case on Grounds of Private Defence | Right of Self-Preservation Not to Be Weighed on Golden Scales
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh recently set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on a doctor from Uttarakhand for shooting a man who had entered his clinic armed with a pistol and opened fire. Accepting the doctor’s plea of private defence, the Court held that retaliatory action taken in such circumstances cannot be assessed with mathematical precision and must be viewed from the standpoint of a reasonable person facing imminent threat
The case arose from an incident involving the appellant, a practicing doctor, and the deceased, with whom he had a long-standing dispute over a money transaction. On the day of occurrence, the deceased arrived at the appellant’s clinic armed with a pistol. He fired at the appellant, injuring him on the head. In the ensuing struggle, the appellant managed to snatch the firearm from the deceased and fired at him, resulting in the latter’s death.
Both parties registered First Information Reports (FIRs) against each other. However, since the deceased had succumbed to injuries, the FIR lodged against him was closed. The investigating authorities thereafter proceeded against the appellant, charging him initially with an offence under Section 302 of the IPC, which prescribes punishment for murder.
At trial, the Sessions Court examined the evidence including the post-mortem report, medical records, and witness testimonies. While it did not sustain the charge of murder, it convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part I of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
The appellant challenged this conviction before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, upheld the trial court’s conclusion that the right of private defence had been exceeded. It affirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part I IPC.
Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the appellant approached the Supreme Court of India. Represented by senior counsel, he contended that his act was a clear instance of private defence, triggered by the immediate and armed aggression of the deceased. He argued that it was unreasonable to hold that the right of self-preservation had been exceeded in such circumstances.
On the other hand, the State submitted that the medical evidence and post-mortem findings indicated that the appellant had deliberately fired at vital parts of the body, thereby going beyond the permissible limits of private defence. The prosecution urged the Court to sustain the findings of the lower courts.
The Bench recorded that the deceased was the aggressor, as he went armed with a pistol to the appellant’s clinic and fired first, causing injury. The Court stated: “The right of private defence cannot be brushed aside and cannot be weighed in a golden scale. In such a case, the approach of the Court shall not be pedantic. It should be seen from the point of view of a common and reasonable person.”
Referring to precedent in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, (2010) 2 SCC 333, the Court extracted principles governing private defence. The judgment noted: “The right of self-defence is a very valuable right, serving a social purpose and should not be construed narrowly. Situations have to be judged from the subjective point of view of the accused concerned in the surrounding excitement and confusion of the moment, confronted with a situation of peril and not by any microscopic and pedantic scrutiny.”
The Bench cited Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1971) 3 SCC 244, observing that once confronted with imminent threat, the accused cannot be expected to calibrate defensive force with “arithmetical exactitude.”
The Court further recorded principles from Buta Singh v. State of Punjab (1991) 2 SCC 612, which recognised that in moments of danger, “a person who is apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales in the spur of the moment.”
Summarising the governing doctrine, the Court noted that:
- “Self-preservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognised by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilised countries.”
- “A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self defence into operation.”
- “It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude.”
- “The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Court held: “We have no hesitation in setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and that of the High Court. Accordingly, we are inclined to accept the plea of private defence raised by the appellant.”
“The appellant is, thus, acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds stand discharged.”
Any pending applications related to the matter stood disposed of by virtue of the final order.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner (Appellant): Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Senior Advocate; Dr. Vijendra Singh, Advocate; Mr. Deepak Goel, Advocate-on-Record.
For the Respondent (State of Uttarakhand): Mr. Akshat Kumar, Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Advocate.
Case Title: Rakesh Dutt Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1461 of 2012
Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
