Citation – 1995 SCC (1) 458
Petitioner- Wassansingh
Respondent – The state of Punjab
Bench – S.B Majmudar, S.K. Mukherjee
Date of Judgement– 28th November 1995
Concerned Statutes – Section 302, Section 307, Section 325, Section 324, and Section 34 of IPC. Section 27 of the Arms act.
Facts –TheBachan Singh has organized a grand procession ON 11th January 1981 to celebrate the festival of lohri in connection with the birth of his grandchild. He also invited Jagirsingh in the celebrations. While at the time of leaving the three accused came in front of the Bacchansingh’s house with the intention to teach a lesson to HazaraSingh for parking the tractor trolley in the lane.
The appellant who was carrying a gun shot at the Mst Bholan who was the wife of Hazarasingh, this eventually caused her death, appellant Piarasingh fired shot at hazarasingh and the other accused Charansingh has also caused grievous hurt to Hazarasingh.
The Inspector of police station Mallanwala after receiving the information recorded the statement of Hazarasingh and filed a FIR.
The accused Wassan Singh was charged with the murder of Mst Bholan, Piarasingh was charged under section 302 r/w section 34 and section 323 and Charan Singh was charged with section 307 r/w section 34. All the 3 accused was convicted by the trial court under aforesaid sections.
An appeal was filed by them in the High court and it ordered the acquittal of the other 2 accused and charged appellant with a lesser sentence under section 304 on the basis that he exceeded his right of private defense.
Facts in Issue –The Bacchansingh and Hazarasingh also caused several injuries to the appellants. Total 12 injuries were caused to the appellant Wassan Singh out of which two injuries were on the vital part of the body.
Legal Issues –Whether the appellant has exceeded his right of private defense and thus guilty of an offense under section 304?
Petitioner’s Arguments –It was contended by the learned counsel that the High court has wrongly presumed that the when the accused has exercised his right of private defense his apprehension could be of receiving simple hurt at the hands of his assailants. His right of private defense was not only restricted to causing grievous hurt as stated by the High court.
Respondent’s Arguments –The state of Gujarat supported the decision of the High court.
Ratio of Judgement–The Supreme court stated that it is cleared from the medical reports of the accused that he had suffered 12 injuries on his person out of which two were on the vital part of the body in such circumstances one shot fired by the appellant to protect himself cannot be said to have exceeded the right of private defense. On consideration of all the facts section 100 clause secondly of the IPC was attracted in the present case.
The view of the High court was in error as it could not be said that the apprehension could be of simple hurt the injury inflicted on the person of the accused was with sharp edged weapon thus he had every right to protect himself by causing grievous hurt or even by death.
The right of private defense cannot be said to be abridged because an innocent person was shot in the struggle as the act of the accused is protected under section 100.
The court placed reliance on the principle of golden scale given by it in DeoNarain vs state of UP. It was said that in view of what happens on the spur of the moment on spot and keeping in view the normal course of conduct as to how a person would react should be analyzed from the point of view of the accused considering his mental situation at that time.
Judgement – It was held by the court that the High court has erred in stating that the accused has exceeded the right of private defense. The court set aside the conviction of the accused under section 304 and acquitted him from all the charges.
DIVYA BHATT