STATE OF U.P versus GAJEY SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 998 · Decided: 24-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 998 
A 
STATE OF U.P. 
V. 
GAJEY SINGH & ANR. 
Criminal Appeal No. 107 4 of 2001 
s. 
h. 
FEBRUN~Y 24, 2009 
'[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
· Pen_al Code, 1860 : 
.. 
ss. 96-100, s. 302 rlw s. 34 - Right of private defence -
-~ 
c Exercise of - Relevant criteria - Non-explanation of injuries 
on· accused at the time of occurrence by prosecution - Efff?.C! 
on prosecution case - Stated - On facts, it cannot be said that 
accused exceeded their right of private defence - Injuries 
caused on accused were neither superficial hor of minor nature 
0 
- Thus, non-explanation of serious injuries on accused created 
serious dqubt about the credibility of the prosecution case -
Hence, order of acquittal .by High Court not interfered with. 
_. Prosecution case was that quarrel ·took place 
t>etw~en LR and MS-father of GS and RS. Two hours later 
-
., " 
. . 
. 
E 
LR died due to firearm injuries caused by RS,·on order of 
GS. According to the respondents, LR was killed by MS 
when he saw his son RS being assaulted by_ 'lathi' and 
GS with 'balkati'. Trial court convicted the respondents u/ 
s 302 r/w s.34 IPC and sentenced _to imprisonment for -life. 
F 
However, High Court acquitted the respondents since the 
pr.osecution failed to explain the injuries suffered by them. 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal was whether the High Court was justified in 
acquitting the accused holding that non-explanation of 
G the injuries on the accused persons rendered the 
prosecution version doubtful and made the defence 
J 
version more probable that the injuries on the deceased 
were inflicted in exercise of right of private defence. 
H 
998 
.. 
STATE OF U.P. V. GAJEY SINGH & ANR. 
999 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 Section 96 IPC declares that an act done 
in the exercise of the right of private defence is not an 
offence. Section 97 specified the extent of the right of 
private defence whereas Section 99 prescribes the 
limitations on the exercise of this right. Section 100 8 
justifies the killing of an assailant when apprehension of 
atrocious crime enumerated in several clauses of the 
section is shown to exist. First clause of section 100 
applies to cases where there is reasonable apprehension 
of death while second clause is attracted where a person C 
has a genuine apprehension that his adversary is going 
to attack him and he reasonably believes that the attack 
will result in a grievous hurt. In that event he can go to 
the extent of causing the latter's death in the exercise of 
the right of private defence even though the latter may D 
not have inflicted any blow or injury on him. [Para 22 and 
24] [1009-A-H; 1010-A-B] 
1.2 In order to justify the a~~ of causing death of the 
assailant, the accused has simply to satisfy the court that E 
he was faced with an assault which caused a reasonable 
apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The question 
whether the apprehension was reasonable or not is a 
question of fact depending upon the facts and 
circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula 
can be prescribed in this regard. The weapon used, the F 
manner and nature of assault and other surrounding 
circumstances should be taken into account while 
evaluating whether the apprehension was justified or not. 
[Para 25] (1010-C-F] 
1.3 If injuries on the defence are not explained by the G 
prosecution, the same may be taken to be a ground to 
discard the prosecution case, in case the truthfulness of 
prosecution case is otherwise doubted. But, in cases 
where there is consistent evidence of the ·injured H 
STATE OF U.P. V. GAJEY SINGH & ANR. 
1001 
CRIMINALAPPELATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal A 
No.1074 of 2001 
From the Judgement and Order dated 16.02.2001 of the 
High Court of Allahabad Criminal Appeal No. 2786 of 1980 
Pramod Swarup, Raje~v Dubey, Pareena Swarup, B 
Kamlendra Mishra, for the Appellant. 
Aishwarya Bhati, Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Himanshu 
-( 
Singh, Rekha Giri, Shweta Sirohi, for the Respondents. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
c 
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 
16.02.2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of 
judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.2786 of 1980. 
2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal D 
are recapitulated as under: 
3. Lakhi Ram deceased and his brother Jai Singh, PW1 
were sitting at the residence of Sahid Ak

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