PAMMI @BRIJENDRA SINGH versus GOVT. OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 842 · Decided: 12-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PAMMI @BRIJENDRA SINGH 
\~ 
GOVT. OF MAD HY A PRADESH 
FEBRUARY 12, 1998 
B 
[M.M. PUNCHHI, CJ!., K.T. THOMAS AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.) 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sec. 97-Right of Private Defence-Appellant 
along with other accused went armed to settle accounts-Three deceased 
C came to the place of occurrence and tried to pacify-Led to an altercation-
Appel/ant and other accused shot at the deceased persons resulting in their 
death-Held-No right to private defence can be claimed against an act of 
self defence. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Sec. 154-First Information Report 
D lodged soon after the occurrence-Names of all the eye witnesses not 
mentioned in the report-The eye witnesses cross examined rigorously-
Nothing found to doubt their presence at the time of occurrence-No ground 
to .frown at the evidence of such eye witnesses. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Sec. 9-Test Identification Parade~ 
E Appellant seen by the eye witnesses at the time of occurrence-Not for the 
first time-Appellant already known to them-_Names of assailants including 
that of the appellant given in the first _information statement-Held-No 
warrant for reasoning that failure to hold test identification parade had 
vitiated the evidence of such eye witnesses. 
F 
One SS and PW-5 who partners in a liquor business had to settle 
accounts between them, which led to severe antagonism. On the night of 
occurrence, SS and his henchmen including appellant and one TS went to 
the house of PW-5 and, at pistol point, asked him to settle accounts. The 
three victims also reached the place of occurrence and tried to pacify them, 
G which led to a heated altercation. SS, TS and the appellant took out guns and 
fired at all the deceased. Appellant brought a pistol from his car and fired 
at SP, SS fired at BR while TS shot at SU. All the three victims die~. The 
appellant also shot at PW-1 who reached the spot. PW-2 and 4 were also 
present at the place of occurrence but did not receive any injuries. 
H 
At the trial the appellant admitted that he along with the other accused 
842 
... 
PAMMI@ BRIJENDRA SINGH v. GOVT OF M.P. 
843 
went to the place of occurrence. The appellant stated that when the altercation A 
,__,-<. 
ensued and the deceased persons took out iron rods for attacking SS, he 
took out his pistol to counter threat in self-defence. He denied any action on 
his pa1i but admitted that some persons who came along with them had, for 
self-protection, opened fire. 
The Sessions Comi, relying u1ion the fact of failure of the inve~iigating B 
r 
agency to conduct a test identification parade, observed that such failure had 
se1iously affected the veracity of the version of the eye witnesses and acquitted 
the accused. On ap1Jeal the High Court reversed the acquittal. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that none of the witnesses c 
had seen the occurrence and attacked the testimony of PWs-2 and 4 on the 
ground that their names did not find a place in the FIR or in the Inquest 
Report. According to him the Jnvestigat~ng Officer came to know of them 
only at a later stage of inve~tigation. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
... 
D 
HELD : 1.1. It is one of the canons of the Ja:w of right of private defence 
that such a right would not enure to an aggressor. Any step resorted to 
thwart an act of aggression is regarded as defensive act and no right of 
private defence can be claimed again~i such an act of self defence. [847-B] 
E 
1.2. The appellant had admitted that he along with other accused went 
to the house of PW-5 equipped with firearms to settle scores. Such an entry 
into the house of PW-5 particularly dming night time is an act of aggression 
on the part of those who went there. At any rate, such an entry was enough 
to instil reasonable apprehension in the minds of the occupant of the house 
'r 
that accused have committed criminal trespass and they might persist in F 
... 
mounting up the aggression. (846-G-H; 847-A] 
2. The evidence of the eye witnesses is not to be jettisoned merely due 
to the failure of the Investigation Officer to conduct tei.1 identification parade. 
This is not a case where the witnesses were seeing the appellant for the first 
time. PW-1 had mentioned the names !Jf some of the assailants including the G 
f-
appellant even in the first information statement, which he lodged soon after 
*~>~ 
the occurrence. PW s-2 and 4 also said that they knew the appellant earlier. 
J 
(847-C-D]. 
--· 
3. The

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