LAXMAN SINGH versus POONAM SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 528 · Decided: 10-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
LAXMAN SINGH 
V. 
POONAM SINGH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER IO, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 96, 97, I 00, I 0 I & I 02-Right of private 
defence-Availability of-Held, is dependent on the facts and circumstances 
of the case-Has to be pleaded by the person and cannot be presumed on 
C mere conjectures and surmises-Burden of proof is on the person taking 
the plea-Injuries sustained by the person cannot be the basis-Available 
when there is reasonable apprehension of the death or grievous injury on 
the person----Evidence Act, 1872-Section I 05. 
The deceased and his relatives were having a long standing 
D dispute with the respondents over the possession of a piece of land. On 
the fateful day, the deceased and his relatives were ploughing the 
disputed land. The respondents with 12 others objected to the ploughing 
by the deceased on the ground that the disputed land belonged to the 
respondents. In the ensuing fight, the respondents assaulted and 
E innicted injuries on the deceased and his relatives with sticks resulting 
in the death of the deceased. The brother of the deceased PW2 lodged 
a complaint with the police. The respondents were tried and the trial 
court held that the land was in possession of the complainant even 
though the revenue records were in favour of the respondents. 
F Accordingly it acquitted the respondents of the charges under Section 
447 IPC. However, the trial court held that the respondents exceeded 
the right of private defence available to them under Section 96 IPC by 
innicting serious injuries on the deceased and hence were guilty of 
offences under Section 304 Part II and Section 323 IPC. The respondents 
G challenged the conviction and sentence before the High Court. The 
High Court acquitted the respondents on the ground that they have 
not exceeded the right of private defence since the respondents 
sustained injuries in the fight. 
In appeals to this Court, the appellants contended that the 
H parameters of the right of private defence provided under the IPC have 
528 
LAXMAN SINGH v. POONAM SINGH 
529 
been completely overlooked by the High Court and hence the High A 
Court was not justified in acquitting the respondents. 
The respondents, on the other hand, contended that they were 
acquitted of the charges under Section 447 IPC on the basis of the 
revenue records; and that the right of private defence had not been B 
exceeded by the respondents since they themselves had sustained 
injuries in the fight. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 96 IPC does not define the expression 'right of C 
private defence'. Whether in a particular set of circumstances, a 
person acted in exercise of the right of private defence is a question 
of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. 
No test for determining such a question can be laid down. In determining 
the question of fact, the Court must consider all the surrounding 
circumstances. If the circumstances show that the right of private D 
defence was legitimately exercised, it is open to the Court to consider 
such a plea. In a given case, the Court can consider it even if the 
accused has not taken it, if the same is available to be considered from 
the material on record. [534-B-E] 
2. Under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden 
of proof is on the accused, who sets up the plea of self-defence, and in 
the absence of proof, it is not possible for the Court to presume the 
truth of the plea of self-defence. The Court shall presume the absence 
E 
of such circumstances. It is for the accused to place necessary material F 
on record either by himself adducing positive evidence or by eliciting 
necessary facts from the witnesses examined for the prosecutio11. An 
accused taking the plea of the right of private defence is not required 
to call evidence; he can establish his plea by reference to circumstances 
transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself. Where the right of 
private defence is pleaded, the defence must be a reasonable and 
probable version satisfying the Court that the harm caused by the 
accused was necessary for either warding off the attack or for 
forestalling the further reasonable apprehension from the side of the 
accused. The accused need not prove the existence of the right of 
private defence beyond reasonable doubt. [534-E-H) 
G 
H 
530 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Munshi Ram & Ors. v.

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