STATE OF PUNJAB versus AJAIB SINGH

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 20-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
-;.--
AJAIB SINGH 
JANUARY 20, 1995 
B 
[P.B. SAWANT AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.) 
Penal Code 186~Section 100 First and Secondly-Exercise of right of 
" 
private defence resulting in deatlt-Two policemen killed in altercation be-
~ 
tween police officers on authority to check trucks-Whether accused entitled 
c to use of fireann where he was attacked by dandas-Held, whether assault 
such as to cause reasonable apprehension that death would otherwise be the 
conseqence depends on facts of each case-In the facts of the case, held, 
interference with acquittal by High Court not wa"anted-Dependants of 
deceased to be compensated from Rs. 5 lakhs which accused had offered out 
D of remorse-S. 302-Criminal appea'l--Compensation. 
Criminal Jurisprudence-Speedy trial, early hearing and quick disposa~ 
held, sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence-Mechanism to clear backlog or 
to dispose of criminal appeals pending for more than reasonable time in 
higher courts recommended-Further, reinstatement and promotion of police 
E officer during pendency of appeal on charge of murder deprecated-Sealed 
cover procedure, held, should have been adopted-Service law. 
Criminal Triaf-Appeal against acquittal-Held, duty of court hearing 
appeal against acquittal is to satisfy itself whether view of acquitting court a 
:r 1-. 
possible view-Finding of High Court neither perverse nor infinn nor palpably 
F erroneous-Acquittal upheld-Section 100, First and Secondly, lPC. 
-
An altercation between two officers nf the Punjab Police on the 
authority to check trucks on the GT Road resulted in the death of an ASI 
and a Constable. The trial court convicted the respondent under S. 302 
,.. 
G IPC and S.27 of the Arms Act 1950. In revision, the High Court accepted 
his plea of private defence, and acquitted him. 
'M 
There was no dispute about the time, date or place of the incident. 
The trial court did not credit the version of the prosecution, but 
H based its conviction on the injuries found on the person of the respondent 
496 
/ 
I 
r 
STATE OF PB. v. A SINGH 
497 
which, it held, did not justify exercise of the right of private defence. 
A 
The High Court, while agreeing with the findings of the trial court, 
further held that the prosecution story explaining the presence of the 
deceased did not inspire confidence, and concluded that the deceased and 
his .companions were checking trucks and extracting money from the truck 
drivers; therefore the respondent must have felt offended as it amounted B 
to unnecessary interference in his jurisdiction and even to an illegal act of 
extracting money from the drivers. The High Court also reversed the 
finding of the trial court that the injuries were self- inflicted. 
In appeal before this Court, the right of private defence was urged C 
on behalf of the respondent. It was contended that it was a case of mistaken 
identity for which the deceased himself was responsible. Arguing that the 
delay in criminal cases should not be lost sight of, and that at this distance 
of time it was just and expedient to compensate the deceased family 
monetarily instead of entering into whether the respondent was liable to 
be convicted, counsel for the respondent offered Rs. 5 lakhs as a genuine D 
feeling of remorse for what had happened under mistaken belief. 
For the appellant it was urged that once the incident was admitted, 
the burden was on the respondent to establish that he acted in exercise of 
the right of private defence; that where no firearm had been used by the E 
deceased party, the respondent was not justified in shooting and killing 
two persons; and that it was apparent from the nature of injuries that it 
was a cold- blooded murder. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. It shall depend on the facts of each case whether the 
assault was such as could cause reasonable apprehension that death would· 
otherwise be the consequence of such assault. The respondent had nine 
injuries. They have been found not to be self-inflicted. He was attacked by 
F 
the deceased and his companions. The trial judge found that there was no G 
previous enmity. The submission that the respondent was not entitled to 
use firearm as he was attacked with dandas only cannot be accepted. That 
is not what is provided by clauses (I) and (II) of Section 100 IPC. 
[505-D-C] 
2. The finding of the High Court is neither perverse nor infirm nor H 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 1 S.C.R. 
A palpably erro_n

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