SHRIRAM versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 129 · Decided: 24-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SHRIRAM 
A 
v. 
ST ATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
NOVEMBER 24, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND,ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
Section 97-Right of private defence-Existence of-Relevant factors 
to be considered-Held: Mere injuries on the body of the accused did not C 
lead to the presumption that the accused had caused injuries in the exercise 
of his right of private defence-Right of private defence not to be based 
on surmises and speculation-The injuries receivd by the accused, the 
imminence of threat to his safety and the injuries caused by the accused 
are all relevant factors to determine whether right of private defence was D 
available or not. 
Criminal Trial : 
Injuries on the accused-Non-explanation of-Effect of-On 
prosecution case-Held : Non-explanation of injuries on the accused did E 
not automatically lead to rejection of prosecution evidence especially if the 
injuries are simple and superficial in nature-Whether evidence is clear, 
cogent and trustworthy and where truth could be distinguished from 
falsehood, ngn-explanation of injuries would not affect the prosecution 
case. 
According to the prosecution, the appellant-accused assaulted 
and caused injuries to the complainant party by lathi and stones 
resulting in the death of one person. The appellant also claimed to have 
sustained injuries. The trial court convicted the appellant under 
Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860. 
F 
G 
The High Court held that the accused persons were the aggressors 
and merely because they claimed to have sustained injuries, which 
were simple in nature, that was not a case of free fight and they were 
rightly held guilty by the trial court. However, the conviction was H 
129 
130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A altered to one under Section 304 Part i IPC. Hence the appeal. 
B 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the prosecution 
had not explained the injuries on the accused persons ai:td, therefore, 
the prosecution case must be rejected. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The number of injuries is n_9t always a safe criterion ' 
for determining who the aggressor ;as. it ·~annot be stated as a 
universal rule that whenever the injuries are on.the body of the accused 
C persons, a presumption must .necessarily be raised that the accused 
persons had caused injuries in exercise of the right of private defence. 
The defence has to further establish that the injuries found were 
'suffered in the same occurrence and that such injuries on the accused 
probabilise the version of the right of private defence. Non-explanation 
D of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of occurrence 
or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance. 
However, mere non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may 
not affect the prosecution case in all cases. This principle applies to 
cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and 
E superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent 
and disinterested, so probable, consistent and credit-worthy, that it far 
outweighs the effect of the omission on the. part of the prosecution to 
explain the injuries. [135-E-H) 
F 
Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR (1976) ·SC 2263, relied on. 
1.2. A plea of right of priva_te defence cannot be based on surmises 
and speculation. While considering whether the right of private 
defence is available to an accused, it is not relevant whether he may 
have had a chance to inflict severe and mortal injury on the aggressor. 
G In order to find out whether the right of private defence is available 
to an accused, the entire incident must be examined· with care and 
viewed in its proper setting. [136-A-B] 
2.1. To claim a right of private defence extending to voluntary 
H causing of death, the accused must show that there were circumstances 
... 
SHRIRAM v. STATE OF M.P. 
131 
giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death A · 
or grievous hurt would be caused to him. The burden is on the accused 
to show that he had a right of private defence, which extended to 
causing of death. [136-D-El 
2.2. The right of private defence commences, as soon a$ a 
reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attenwt, B 
or threat, to commit the offence, although the offence may not have 
been committed but not until that there is that reasonable apprehension. 
The right lasts so long as the reasonable

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