DINESH SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 801 · Decided: 04-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] t1 S.C.R. 801 
-y 
DINESH SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2001) 
AUGUST 4, 2008 
B 
..y 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
~ 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Pena/Code, 1860-ss. 96-101, 103ands. 304 (Part/) 
- Right of private defence -Availability and extent of- Com- c 
mencement and continuance of right - Stated - On facts, ac-
cused allegedly caused fire arm injury to deceased resulting 
in his death - High Court convicted accused u/s. 304 (Part I}, 
though upheld acquittal of other co-accused - Claim of right 
of private defence and that the other co-accused acquitted on D 
the self same evidence - On appeal, held: It is established 
... ,,.. 
beyond doubt from the evidence on record that deceased died 
due to gunshot injury caused by accused - There was no rea-
sonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt to accused 
nor s. 103 attracted - High Court analysed in detail that case 
E 
of accused stood on a different footing and evidence was in-
adequate with regard to the other co-accused - Thus, order of 
r-
High Court does not call for interference. 
Maxims - Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus - Meaning and 
applicability of - Stated. 
F 
~ ). 
On the fateful day, the appellant allegedly fired upon 
J. Other accused were also present. J sustained fire-arm 
injury on his chest and died on the spot. The appellant 
along with other accused were charged for offences pun-
ishable u/s. 147, 148, 302, 325, 323 and 149 IPC. However, G 
the trial court acquitted all of them. In appeal, the High 
~ 
Court upheld the acquittal of the accused persons except 
' 
the appellant. It convicted the appellant for offence pun-
ishable u/s. 304 Part (II) IPC. Hence the present appeal. 
801 
H 
~
802 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 11 S. C.R 
r
Y-
' 
' 
A 
Appellant contended that the trial court rightly no-
\
ticed that the appellant and the co-accused exercised right 
of private defence; and that the evidence was found in-
adequate for rest of the accused persons, thus, the High 
Court could not have held the appellant guilty. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the .Court 
't 
HELD: 1.1 A plea of right of private defence cannot 
be based on surmises and speculation. While consider-
"': 
\. 
ing whether the right of private defence is available to an 
r 
c accused, it is not relevant whether he may have a chance 
to inflict severe and mortal injury on the aggressor. In or-
der to find whether the right of private defence is avail-
able·to an accused, the entire incident must be examined 
with care and viewed in its proper setting .. To claim a right 
D of private defence extending to voluntary causing of 
death, the accused must show that there were drcum-
stances giving rise to reasonable gr~unds for apprehend-
~ ,._ 
ing that either death .or grievous hurt would ·be caused to 
him. The burden is on the accused to show that he 'had a 
E right of private defence which extended to causing of 
death. The right commences, as soon as a reasonable 
apprehension of danger to the body aris~s from an at-
tempt, or threat, to commit the offence, although the of-
.,,, 
fence may not have been committed but not until there is 
that reasonable apprehension. The right lasts so long as 
F the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body 
continues. As soon as the cause for reasonable appre-
·-\ :-
'>-
hension disappears and the threat has either been de-
stroyed or has been put to route, there. can be no occa-
sion to exercise the right of private defence. [Paras 5 .and 
G 6] [809 F-G, 810 B-E] 
1.2 The accused need not prove the existence of the 
right of private defence beyond reasonable d·oubt. It ·is 
'ff' 
enough for him to show as in a civil ·case thatthe prepon-
H 
derance of probabilities is in favour ·of his plea. In order to 
DINESH SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 
803 
find whether right of private defence is available or not, A 
the injuries received by the accused, the imminence of 
threat to his safety, the injuries caused by accused and 
the circumstances whether accused had time to have re-
course to public authorities are all relevant factors to be 
considered. [Paras 4 and 7] (809 E, 810 F] 
B 
1.3 The right of self-defence is a very valuable right, 
serving a social purpose and should not be construed 
narrowly. The right of private defence is essentially a de-
fensive right circumscribed by the governing statute i.e. 
the tPC, available only when the circumstances clearly C 
justify it. It should not be allowed to be ple

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