WASSAN SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 703 · Decided: 28-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-<.. 
WASSAN SINGH 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
NOVEMBER 28, 1995 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) 
B 
Criminal Law : 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : 
c 
Section 100 secondly and 99-R.ight of private defence of body-Wizen 
extends to even causing death-Accused must have a reasonable. apprehen-
sion in his mind that he will be subjected to grievous !nut-Must be judged 
from the subjective point of view of the accused and cannot be subjected to 
any microscopic and pedantic scrutiny. 
D 
Sections 301and10(}-Exercise of 1ight of private defence causing death 
of an innocent person instead of the intended persorr-Held: Section 301 will 
have no operation and the accused will remain protected under Section JOO. 
The appellant was convicted under section 304 Part I, Indian Penal 
0 
Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. E 
According to the prosecution, the appellant was the partyman of C 
and P, the two accused. B and H were real brothers and the deceased was 
. the wife of H and J was the nephew of B and H. P was the cousin of H. B 
was to celebrate Lohri festival in connection with the birth of his grand-
F 
child. B went to J to request him to join the celebration of Lohri festival 
at his house. The next day J came to the House of B and remained there 
till the evening on the occasion of the birth of his grand-child. In the 
evening H, his wife and B came out of the house along with J to see the 
latter off. They were standing in front of the gate of his (H's) house. At G 
that time electric light which was fitted at his house, was illu~inating in 
which a human being could be identified. J was going to connect his tractor 
with his trolley. Meanwhile, P accused armed with his D.B.B.L. gun, W 
-· 
appellant armed with a single barrelled gun and C accused armed with 
'gandasa' came to the house of H and B and C said that they were going 
to teach H and others a lesson for parking the tractor trolley in the lane. H 
703 
A 
B 
704 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
P opened the attack by firing from his D.B.B.L. gun towards ff.-
However, the fire missed the target as he (H) had knelt down to save 
himself and the fire passed over his head. Thereafter appellant fired from 
his single barrelled gun and the shot hit the deceased near her pelvic 
region. On receipt of this injury, she fell down on the ground. Thereafter 
C dealt a blow on the head of B from its sharp side. Meanwhile P dealt 
blow with the butt of his gun on the left hand of J and another blow from 
the said butt on his right ear. Then C dealt a blow on the head of B from 
its reverse side. Thereupon H, B and J raised an alarm and on this, the 
accused decamped with their weapons. Before that, B and H also caused 
injuries on the person of appellant in their self-defence. The deceased 'B' 
C was placed in a car and she died on the way to the hospital and a First 
Information Report was lodged, and a post-mortem was held. 
On the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, 
the Sessions Judge came to conclusion that the charges levelled against· 
D the appellant were fully established. However, the appellant was held guilty 
of an offence under Section 304 Part I, IPC. His conviction and sentence 
under Section 27 of the Arms Act were also maintained. 
In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appellant it was 
contended that he had a right of private defence of body; that he had the 
E right to cause fatal injury by the use of his firearm. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD 1.1. It is obvious that if an accused with an intention to kill 
his victim fires a shot at him which misses the target and hits any other 
F 
innocent person fatally he would remain guilty of an offence of murder but 
if the accused had no such intention and was protected by right of private 
defence under the situation and circumstances in which it could extend to 
even causing death of assailant as laid down by Section 100 and if in 
exercise of that right of private defence the blow fatally falls on an innocent 
G person the action would still remain protected under Section 100 of the 
IPC. [713-D-E] 
1.2. For applicability of Section 3q1, the act must amount to culpable 
homicide in the first place. If the act is not culpable at all, then even if it 
results into homicide of an innocent person, in view of Section 100 IPC as 
~ in the present case, Section 301 will have no operation. [713-H; 714-A] 
WASSAN SING

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