BHAIYA BAHADUR SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 310 · Decided: 09-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
BHAIYA BAHADUR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
JULY 9, 1996 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
l11dia11 Pe11al Code, l860-Sectlo11s 96 and 97-Right of self defe11cL~ 
Exte11t of--011us of proof-Whether on the accused-Degree of 
proof-Whether beyond reasonable doubt. 
The case of the prosecution was that the ap11ellant trampled over a 
portion of the field of the victim's party while taking his tractor to his field. 
The victim's party objected to this, on which the appellant lost his temper 
and '"'ent back to his house and brought a single barrel gun. Thereafter, 
appellant used abusive language and fired one shot injuring PW-15 and 
D PW-16 and thereafter, reloaded his gun and !ired another shot which killed 
the deceased. The appellant was charged under Sections 302 and 307 of' 
I.P.C. as well as under Section 25(a) of the Arms Act. 
The appellant denied the allegation of the prosecution and con-
E tended that the injuries were caused in exercise of his right to private 
defence of person and property. The appellant's case was that while he was 
going to his field on a tractor, the victim's party, armed with lathis and 
ballam, attacked him and his tractor. He further contended that he got 
down from the tractor and ran away but was chased by the victim's party. 
F 
He claims that the shot was !ired in exercise of his right to defend his 
person and prorierty. He further alleged that no F .I.R. was lodged by the 
police when he attempted to lodge one. 
The appellant was arrested one day after the incidence and five 
simple injuries \Vere found on his person. No lathi or ballam was recovered 
G from the place of occurrence. 
All the courts below rejected the plea of self-defence and convicted 
the appellant. This Crmrt, rejecting the appeal 
HELD I.I. When an accused person sets up a plea of self-defence, 
H the onus tu establish that plea lies on him. It is well established that the 
310 
BHAIYABAHADURSlNGHv. STATEOFM.P. 
311 
accused is not required to prove that plea beyond reasonable doubt but A 
has merely to show it as probable. The onus to probabli>e the defence 
version, from the salient facts and circumstances appearing in the 
· prosecution case, or otherwise set up by the accused in the form of defence 
evidence, is always on him. [316-E] 
1.2. In the instant case, appellant consciously and deliberately fired 
the two shots successfully; the second one after re-loading the gun. He fully 
intended the consequences of his acts, i.e. the injuries to PWs 15 and 16 
and the instant death of the deceased. [318-H] 
B 
1.3. It appears that the appellant consciously and deliberately fired 
C 
the two shots successfully; the second one arter re-loading the gun. He fully 
intended the conse<1uences of his acts, i.e. the injur>es to PWs 15 and 16 
and the instant death of the deceased. [318-H] 
2.1. The plea of the appellant that all the live injuries were caused 
to him while he was sitting on the tractor and lie had to jump off the tractor D 
'vith his gun \\-'here-after \Vhen being follcnved he tired fron1 his gun. This 
plea of the appellant ipso facto does not give hhn the right of private 
defence of person as \\-'ell as the property. The damage to the ~ractor, 
\\'hatever, had been done. It sounds in1probahle that having a gun in his 
hands fully loaded, three men even armed Viith lathis and one man armed E 
\\ith a spear would dare go chasing close to him, once he was seen in a 
charging position preparatory to tiring. [318-B-C] 
2.2. There was no reason for the victim party to be carrying any /athi 
and ballam respectively to the fields on the day of occurrence and to such 
distance, as there was no reason to apprehend any trouble whatsoever. 
F 
Both parties had never quarrelled liefore. Neither weapon was found at the 
spot when the investigating officer conducted the inquest and further 
investigation. [318-D] 
2.3. After the appellant had jumped off the tractor along "ith his 
gun, no injury was allegedly caused to him by the victim party. The right G 
of private defence, if any, ended the moment the appellant successfully 
jumped oft' the tractor and got at a safe distance from the victims. He 
hirnself being in a don1inating position, could have had no cause to tire at 
the victims causing injuries, dangerous in nature and then to have re· 
loaded gun ~ith a po~'erful cartridge containing a bullet, driving it through H 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.