SURESH SINGHAL versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 645 · Decided: 02-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 645 
SURESH SINGHAL 
v. 
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) 
(Criminal Appeal No.1548 of201 l) 
FEBRUARY 02, 2017 
[S.A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 and 304 r/w s.34 -
Double 
murder - Dispute over sale of property - Prosecution case was that 
on the fatefal day, deceased and his brothers were in the office of 
PW-2 where appellant came with his father and another person -
As soon as they entered the office of PW-2, altercation took place 
between the deceased and the appellant whereafter appellant (oak 
out his revolver andfired shots - The two brothers died in the incident· 
- Conviction of appellant and his father for murder - Challenged -
Held: Evidence proved that there was a scujjle in which the appellant 
was pinned to the floor and deceased attempted to strangulate the 
appellant - In the scujjle, appellant may have pulled out his gun 
and upon seeing the gun, the deceased may have released the 
appellant -and started running upon which the appellant may have 
fired the shot which hit deceased on back - This also explains the 
trajectory of the shot in which the bullet entered the body below the 
right shoulder, and travelled upwards without exiting - Medical 
evidence was also to the effect that shot was fired from a distant 
range - No doubt, the appellant exceeded the power given to him 
by law in order to defend himself but the exercise of the right was in 
good faith, in his own defence and without premeditation - The 
homicide in the instant case thus did not amount to murder in the 
view of Exception 2 to s.300 - As regards the killing of second 
brother, the office in which firing took place was a small area - Yet 
PW-3 could not specifically state that appellant shot the second 
deceased - Thus, it was not stated with certainty that the shots which 
hit the second deceased were fired by the appellant - Conviction of 
the appellant u/s.302 for murder is set aside and his conviction 
uls. 3 04 is maintained - Since the appellant has already undergone 
a sentence of l 31h years, he is sentenced u/s.304 to the period 
already undergone. 
645 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
646 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.97 - Right to private defence - Held: 
A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-
defence into operation and it is not necessary that there should be 
an actual commission of the offence in order to give rise to the right 
of private defence. 
B 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: 1. A close examination of the evidence showed 
that a scuffle did take place. In this scuffle, the deceased alone, 
or along with his two brothers tried to strangulate the appellant. 
The appellant reached for his revolver, upon which the deceased 
released him and turned around to run away. At this point, the 
appellant shot at him, either still lying down or having got up. 
This probablizes and explains the fact that it was not a close shot 
and that the bullet entered the body below the right shoulder of 
the deceased at the back and travelled upwards. There was no 
blackening, tattooing or charring around the bullet entry wound. 
In fact, the doctors specifically stated that the shot was fired from 
a distant range. It is well known that the shooting from close 
quarters chars or blackens the body. The statement of the doctor 
that it was shot from a distant range has not been challenged in 
the cross-examination. There is another reason which lends 
credence to the assumption that the shot was not fired from close 
quarters, and that is the fact that the bullet did not exit the body. 
Indeed this happens when the bullet being fired from a distance 
loses its velocity. Thus, there was no reliable evidence to show 
that the appellant shot the deceased at close quarters when he 
was being strangulated. The shot was in all probability fired when 
the deceased released the appellant during the scuffle, and on 
seeing him reach for his gun moved away to escape after tuming 
around. [Paras 15-17] [653-G-H; 654-B-C, F-G] 
2. Altogether 7 bullets were fired, and no empty cartridge 
cases were recovered from the scene of the crime. One empty 
.32 bore Smith & Wesson revolver was recovered from the 
appellant. One .32 bore Smith & Wesson revolver was recovered 
from his father. One .22 HP rifle and nine empty cartridges were 
also recovered from the roof of his house. One .32 bullet was 
. taken out from the body o

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