SUKUMARAN versus STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 660 · Decided: 07-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
SUKUMARAN
v.
STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2009)
MARCH 07, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w ss.109 and 203 – Prosecution
case was that appellant-A-1 was working as Forest Range Officer
– On the fateful day, while he was on duty and going in his official
jeep along with co-accused, the driver of his jeep, he noticed four
persons (deceased driver, PW1, PW2 and one cleaner) in a lorry –
Suspecting smuggling of sandalwood, he chased them and after
some distance when the lorry stopped and the driver of the lorry
and his associates started running, he fired a gun shot from his
DBL-gun which hit the driver causing his death – It was the case of
prosecution that the lorry which the deceased was driving was empty,
however, the appellant after he shot the deceased, got down from
his jeep and loaded sandalwood weighing 276 Kgs and also kept
one SBML gun in the lorry – Thereafter, with the help of co-accused,
the appellant caught hold of PW-1 and PW-2 and brought them to
police station and gave the false information by lodging the complaint
that he fired the gun shot to the deceased in his right of private
defence – Appellant along with co-accused was tried for offence
under s.302 r/w ss.109 and 203, s.36-A and E of Tamil Nadu Forest
Act, 1882 and s.3 r/w s.25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 – Appellant
was convicted while co-accused was acquitted by trial court – High
Court allowed the appeal in part and altered conviction of appellant
under s.302 to s.304 Part II while acquitting him for offence under
Arms Act and Forest Act – On appeal, held: Both the eye witnesses
PWs 1 and 2 and also other two more witnesses, namely, PW-3 and
PW-7 were declared hostile and, therefore, there was no evidence
to prove as to how and in what manner, the incident in question
took place – Prosecution was not able to prove the manner in which
the incident occurred as alleged by them in their charge sheet – In
this view of the matter, the appellant was entitled to be acquitted
   [2019] 4 S.C.R. 660
660
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
661
from the charges for want of any evidence against him – Tamil Nadu
Forest Act, 1882 – s.36-A and E – Arms Act, 1959 –s.3 r/w
s.25(1-B)(a).
Penal Code, 1860: ss.96 to 106 – Right of private defence –
Appellant-A-1 was working as Forest Range Officer – On the fateful
day, while he was on duty, he noticed that four persons were going
in a lorry – Suspecting smuggling activity, he chased them –
Thereafter, the driver of the lorry and his associates started pelting
stones at them and shouted “fire them” – At that time, appellant
fired a gun shot which hit the driver of the lorry resulting his death
– Defence of the appellant that he fired a gun shot on the deceased
party in his right of private defence, was not accepted by High
Court – On appeal, held: High Court failed to appreciate that the
appellant had every reason to believe that due to suspicious
movement of the deceased party in the forest, they were trying to
smuggle the sandalwood from the forest – The deceased party was
aggressor because, they first pelted the stones and damaged the
appellant’s vehicle shouting “fire them” – It was the duty of the
appellant to apprehend the culprits who were involved in the activity
of smuggling sandalwood and at the same time to protect himself
and his driver in case of any eventuality arising while apprehending
the culprits – The appellant while firing the gun shot did not target
any particular person out of four as such but fired to resist their
aggression towards him and his driver – If the appellant had not
fired, the deceased party having said “fire them” would have either
used their gun in shooting the appellant or the driver or would
have run away from the spot to avoid their arrest – One gun was
seized from the deceased party on their arrest which was deposited
by the appellant along with his own gun in the police station while
registering the FIR – The appellant being a forest ranger on duty
was entitled to use his gun against the deceased party – In view of
this, firing of gun shot by the appellant towards the deceased party
was not  unjustified.
Penal Code, 1860: ss.96 to 106 – Right of private defence –
Exercise of – The right does not arise if there is time to have recourse
to the protection of the public authorities, and for another, it does
not extend to the infliction of more harm than is neces

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