'Private Defence Can't Be Weighed In Golden Scale' : Supreme Court Acquits Doctor For Killing Attacker Who Fired Pistol

The Supreme Court recently set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on a doctor from Uttarakhand for shooting a man who had gone to his clinic armed with a pistol and fired at him, accepting his plea of private defence.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar relied on the judgment in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., which culled out 10 principles governing private defence.

“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”, the Court observed.

According to the prosecution, the deceased, with whom the appellant Rakesh Dutt Sharma had a money dispute, went to his clinic and fired at him. Sharma snatched the pistol and shot the deceased. Both had registered FIRs against each other, but after the death of the complainant, the FIR against him was closed and Sharma was prosecuted.

The trial court convicted Sharma under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Uttarakhand High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. Sharma then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The State contended that Sharma had exceeded his right of private defence by firing at vital parts of the deceased's body, as shown in the post-mortem report and medical evidence.

The Supreme Court said that the right of private defence cannot be weighed in a golden scale and must be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable person facing imminent danger.

It Court cited the following principles from the Darshan Singh judgment –

1. Self-preservation is a basic human instinct recognised in criminal law across civilised countries, including the right of private defence within reasonable limits.
2. Private defence applies only when a person is suddenly confronted with impending danger, not when the danger is self-created.
3. A reasonable apprehension of danger is sufficient to invoke right of private defence, an actual offence need not have occurred.
4. The right begins as soon as reasonable apprehension arises and continues for as long as the apprehension lasts.
5. A person under attack cannot be expected to modulate his defence with mathematical precision.
6. Force used in private defence must not be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection.
7. Courts can consider self-defence even if the accused has not specifically pleaded it, if it arises from the evidence.
8. The accused does not have to prove the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt.
9. The IPC grants private defence only against unlawful or wrongful acts that amount to offences.
10. A person facing imminent and reasonable danger of death or serious injury may, in self-defence, cause harm even extending to the death of the assailant.

Applying these principles, the court held that Sharma's act fell within the scope of private defence and that both the trial court and the high court erred in convicting him. It therefore acquitted Sharma.

Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu along with Advocates Vijendra Singh and Advocate Deepak Goel appeared for the appellant.

Advocate-on-Record Akshat Kumar and Advocate Anubha Dhulia appeared for the State of Uttarakhand.

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 1461/2012

Case Title – Rakesh Dutt Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 892

Click Here To Read/Download Order