Supreme Court recognises right of private defence, overturns life imprisonment of doctor for shooting attacker

New Delhi: Granting relief to a medical practitioner, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for shooting his assailant dead, the Supreme Court recently set aside his conviction for culpable homicide. The bench held that he was entitled to exercise his right of private defence against the assailant who attacked him with a pistol. Earlier, the trial court had held the doctor guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, and he had been sentenced to life imprisonment. Later, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. However, when the matter reached the Apex Court, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh acquitted the appellant doctor and set aside his conviction. The issue arose from a long-standing enmity between the appellant doctor and the deceased over a money transaction. When the deceased, armed with a pistol, went to the appellant's clinic and shot him, the appellant snatched the pistol from the deceased and shot him down; consequently, both the appellant and the deceased registered FIRs against each other. But, since the deceased had died, the FIR registered against him was closed and the appellant was charged for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Appearing on behalf of the appellant doctor, Senior counsel Mr. S. Nagamuthu submitted that even if the prosecution's version is taken as such, it would only be a case of exercise of the right of private defence by the appellant. He argued that the nature of the injury would be insignificant and the right of private defence cannot be calculated with arithmetical precision. The appellant's counsel contended that the appellant ought not to have been charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and in any case, the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC is also not made out. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior counsel placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another. On the other hand, the State's counsel vehemently argued that the post-mortem report of the deceased and the evidence of the doctor would show that it is a case where the right of private defence was exceeded by the appellant. The deceased was shot by the appellant on vital parts, and both the trial court and the High Court took note of the same. While considering the matter, the Supreme Court bench noted, "As stated, the deceased was the aggressor. He was the one who went to the clinic of the appellant, armed with a pistol and attacked him. Then, the appellant attacked the deceased in retaliation." "As rightly submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the right of private defence cannot be brushed aside and cannot be weighed in a golden scale. In such a case, the approach of the Court shall not be pedantic. It should be seen from the point of view of a common and reasonable person. When an attack is sought to be made on the accused by a person, who goes to the place of the accused, armed with a pistol and thereafter, shoots him on his head causing injury, there is no way the accused person would apply his rational mind in exercising his right of private defence," it further observed. The bench observed that, considering the principle governing the right of private defence, the top court bench held in the case of Darshan Singh (supra) that self-preservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognised by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilised countries. Further, the Court had held that a person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened. In Darshan Singh's (supra) case, the Court had also held that in private defence, the force used by the accused ought not to be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for the protection of the person or property. Referring to this order, the Apex Court bench accepted the plea of private defence raised by the appellant doctor and set aside his conviction. "Applying the aforesaid principles, we have no hesitation in setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and that of the High Court. Accordingly, we are inclined to accept the plea of private defence raised by the appellant," held the top court bench. To view the order, click on the link below: https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/rakesh-dutt-sharma-vs-state-of-uttarakhand-300329.pdf