DARSHAN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 642 · Decided: 15-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2010) 1 S.C.R. 642 
DARSHAN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1057 of 2002) 
JANUARY 15, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 96, 97 and 100 - Right to private defence - Exercise 
of - Land dispute between parties - Gun shot injury by . 
accused resulting in death of deceased - Plea of private 
defence by accused - Acquittal by trial court - Set aside by 
0 
High Court and conviction of accused - On appeal, held: Law 
does not require a law-abiding citizen to behave like a coward 
when confronted with an imminent unlawful aggression -
When there is real apprehension that aggressor might cause 
death or grievous hurt, right of private defence of defender 
extends to killing the aggressor - On facts, accused had 
E serious apprehension of death or at least grievous hurl when 
he exercised his right of private defence to save himself -
Role attributed to accused is fully covered by his right of 
private defence - Trial court's view is the possible view and 
is based on the entire evidence on record - Thus, order of 
F 
acquittal restored. 
Right to private defence - Guiding principles for exercise 
of right to private defence - Explained. 
G 
Appeal: Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference 
- Held: If trial court's view is a possible or plausible view, then 
appellate court or High Court is not justified in interfering with 
it- There is presumption of innocence which is further fortified 
with the acquittal of accused by trial court. 
H 
642 
DARSHAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & A.NR. 
643 
According to the prosecution case, there was a A 
dispute between two brothers GS and BS with regard to 
partition of land. On the fateful day, the complainant party 
were irrigating their fields and cutting the ridges. GD and 
AS were also present. BS gave gandasa blow causing 
injuries on the chest of GS. GS then attacked BS with a B 
gandasa on his head and BS fell down. Thereafter, the 
appellant-son of BS fired two shots from his licensed gun 
which hit GS in the chest and some of the pellets hit GR 
and GD. GS died on the spot. Appellant claimed right of 
private defence. Trial court acquitted the appellant and c 
BS. High Court set aside the order of acquittal and 
convicted them. Hence the present appeal. During the 
pendency of the appeal BS died. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the 
instant case, the appellant had the serious apprehension 
D 
of death or at least the grievous hurt when he exercised 
his right of private defence to save himself. The role 
attributed to the appellant is fully covered by his right of E 
private defence. The impugned judgment of the High 
Court is set aside and the judgment of acquittal of the trial 
court is restored. [Paras 37 and 65) (668-E; 677-A-B] 
SCOPE AND FOUNDATION OF PRIVATE DEFENCE: 
2.1. In order to justify the act of causing death of the 
assailant, the accused has simply to satisfy the court that 
he was faced with an assault which caused a reasonable 
F 
/apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The question 
whether, the apprehension was reasonable or not is a G 
question of fact depending upon the facts and 
circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula 
can be prescribed in this regard. The weapon used, the 
manner and nature of assault and other surrounding 
circumstances should be taken into account while H 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 1 S.C.R. 
A evaluating whether the apprehension was justified or 
not? (Para 23] (664-A-C] 
2.2. When enacting ss. 96 to 106 IPC excepting from 
its penal provisions, certain classes of acts, done in good 
8 
faith for the purpose of repelling unlawful aggressions, 
the Legislature clearly intended to arouse and encourage 
the manly spirit of self-defence amongst the citizens, 
when faced with grave danger. The law does not require a 
law-abiding citizen to behave like a coward when confronted 
C with an imminent unlawful aggression. There is nothing 
more degrading to the human spirit than to run away in 
face of danger. The right of private defence is thus 
designed to serve a social purpose and deserves to be 
fostered within the prescribed limits. [Paras 24 and 38] 
D (664-F-H; 668-F-G] 
E 
Mahandi v. Emperor (1930) 31 Criminal Law Journal 
654 (Lahore); Alingal Kunhinayan and Anr. v. Emperor Indian 
Law Reports 28 Madras 454; Ranganadham Perayya 
(1957) 1 Andhra Weekly Reports 181, referred to. 
Rus

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.