Supreme Court of India
SAT NARAINversusSTATE OF HARYANA TH. MINISTRY OF HOME
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 20
- Decided
- 8 January 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- C K THAKKER
Holding
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to claim private defence and his conviction under sections 302 and 307 IPC stands.
Summary
The dispute arose between Sat Narain and the complainant party over a family quarrel. On the night of 17 June 1999, Sat Narain and his accomplices blocked the complainant's jeep, attacked them and Sat Narain fired three shots from a licensed gun, killing Chhotu Ram and injuring his wife Sakeela; a second shot aimed at Ravinder Kumar missed. The accused claimed they acted in self‑defence, alleging they were threatened. The trial court convicted Sat Narain under IPC sections 302, 307, 323 and 324 read with 34, a decision affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the right of private defence under IPC ss. 96‑99 was available, noting that the complainant party were unarmed, not aggressors, and that the appellant re‑loaded his gun, indicating an intention to kill. The Court held that the defence of self‑defence was not tenable and upheld the conviction for murder and attempted murder.
Issues considered
- The appellant’s claim of right of private defence under IPC ss. 96‑99
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of murder under s.302 and attempt to murder under s.307
- Whether the burden of proof on the accused for self‑defence is satisfied
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 105
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307, s. 323, s. 324, s. 34, s. 96, s. 97, s. 98, s. 99
Subjects
private defenceself‑defencemurderattempted murderburden of proofreasonable apprehensionreloading gununarmed victimsconviction upheld
Judgment
[2008) 1 S.C.R. 243
SAT NARAIN A
·~
v:
STATE OF HARYANA TH. MINISTRY OF HOME
(Crl. A. No. 38 of 2008)
JANUARY 8, 2008
B
[C.K. THAKKER AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 302 and 307 - Conviction under - Dispute between
complainant party and accused leading to fatal shot to one c
and injuries to others - Conviction by courts below-Accused
-<
taking plea of self defence - On appeal, held: Courts below
rightly believed the injured witnesses as also other prosecution
witnesses - Complainant party were unarmed and were not
aggressors- Moreso, accused re-loaded the gun which proves D
i his intention to kill the complainant side - Thus, accused could
not have claimed the benefit of private defence-A/so, acquittal
-t- of others extending them benefit of doubt would not make
conviction and finding recorded against accused vulnerable
- Hence, order of conviction upheld. E
ss 96-99 - Right of private defence - Availability of -
Burden of proof - Held: Right of private defence is available
provided there is reasonable apprehension to life or grievous
hurt to such person even jn absence of physical injury -
Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - F
But when accused takes a defence, he has to prove it on basis
of reasonable probability - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 105.
According to the prosecution case, there was a
dispute between OS, brother-in-law of the complainant
and the appellant, brother of OS. The complainant party G
was supporting OS-PW 12. On the fateful day, when the
unarmed members of the complainant party were going
to their village in a jeep, the accused prevented them from
proceeding towards the village by putting a car in the way
243 H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 1 S.C.R.
A by causing obstruction. The accused party attacked the +- •
complainant party. The appellant fired a shot at CR from
his licensed gun with intention to kill him. The second shot
was fired at the complainant- PW 14 but he escaped it by
taking shelter behind the jeep and the third shot was fired
B at the wife of CR-PW 15. Other accused also caused ·
injuries to the complainant party. The complainant party
raised an alarm. OS and others came to the place of
incident and accused fled away. CR, PWs-14 and 15 were
taken to the hospital, however, CR succumbed to his
C injuries. Investigations were carried out. Prosecution
examined PWs 14, 15, 12 and 13. The appellant admitted
his presence at the place of incident but alleged that he
fired shots in his defence which hit CR. Trial Court
convicted and sentenced the appellant under sections
302, 307, 323 and 324 r/w s. 34 IPC. Other accused were
0
also convicted. The State and complainant filed revision
petitions which were dismissed. The· appellant and the
accused filed appeals. High Court acquitted some
accused giving them benefit of doubt. However, it upheld
the conviction and sentence of the appellant under
E sections 302 and 307 IPC. Hence, the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. With regard to the appellant, no case has
been made out for interference by this Court against the
F order passed by the trial Cpurt and confirmed by the High
Court. Both the Courts believed the story of the
prosecution, particularly evidence of PW14-complainant,
real brother of the deceased and injured as also PW15,
wife of deceased CR, another injured eye-witness. The
G Courts rightly held that the appellant fired three times. The
resultant effect was loss of life of CR and injuries to wife
of CR. The appellant also tried to hit the complainant but
he escaped himself by taking shelter of his vehicle-jeep
and thus, avoided injury by a fire arm. From the evidence,
H it is also clearly established and believed by the Courts
SAT NARAIN v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. 245
.MINISTRY OF HOME
> --f that the appellant had re-loaded his gun which proves his A
intention to kill CR and attempt to kill other members of
the. con:iplainant party. [Para 14) [253-E, F, G; 254-A]
1.2 A right of private defence cannot be weighed in a
'golden scale' and even in absence of physical injury, in a
given case," such right may be upheld by the Court 8'
provided there is reasonable apprehension to life or
- ~
grievous hurt to such person. The onus of proof on the .
accused as to exercise of right of private defence is not
as heavy as on the prosecution to prove guilt of the
accused and it is sufficient for him to prove the defence c
on the touchstone of preponderance pf probability. The
prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. But it is sufficient if the accused, when he is called
upon to take a defence, proves it on the basis of
reasonable probability. He need not prove it beyond D
reasonable doubt. [Paras 17 and 25) [256-E, F, G; 259-F)
· 1.3 In the instant case, regarding right of self defence,
both the Courts rightly held that the complainant party
was not the aggressor and the appellant could not have
claimed right of private defence. It is also clear from E
intrinsic evidence and circumstances, viz. (i) presence of
wife of CR at the time of occurrence at 3.30 a.m.; (ii)
complainant side was unarmed and empty handed; (iii)
all the injured persons were from complainant's family,
etc. It has also come in evidence that it was the accused F
-+
side who abused the complainant party..Deceased CR
tried. to pacify the accused stating that they would discuss
the matter in the morning. How~ver, accused party did
not oblige the deceased· and the complainant party and
did not allow them to leave. When tbe complainant party G
left the place for going to their village in a jeep, they found
Maruti car of the accused in the way which prevented
them from proceeding towards their village and at that
· stage, the accusedattacked them. [Para 15) [254-B, C; D, E]
H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A 1.4 High Court was wholly right in holding that when *' ,
accused-appellant had admitted his presence at the scene
of offence as also use of fire-arm and pleaded the right of
self defence, there was no question of his alibi. Therefore,
it was for the appellant to place before the Court the
B circumstances in which he exercised the said right. But
in the instant case, from the facts and evidence on record,
the right of self defence was not at all available to the
appellant. The complainant party was unarmed and also i. ,
not an aggressor and hence the appellant could not have
c committed death of CR nor could have caused injuries to
wife of CR. It was the appellant, who came with a loaded
gun and fired shots one after th~ other which resulted in
death of CR, injury to wife of CR, though complainant
could avoid the shot and remained unhurt. The gun was
re-loaded b~r the appellant which goes a long way to
0
exhibit his intention to finish the complainant side. In the
light of the evidence, the trial court did not grant benefit
of private defence to the appellant. The High Court again
considered the plea of the accused and negatived it.
E [Paras 17, 18 and 25] [256-D-E; 259-F, G; 256-G; 257-A, BJ
1.5 Trial Court convicted accused nos. 1 and 3 also
but High Court allowed the appeals of the other two
accused, extending benefit of doubt to them observing
that they might have been roped in belatedly and acquitted
F them. But that does not mean that the appellant who had
used his gun, killed deceased and also attempted to kill ~
PW-14 and 15 is entitled to acquittal or that his conviction
and sentence was not in consonance with law. [Parar. 17
and 21) [256·.C, D; 258-F, G]
G 1.6 Since both the Courts were right in believing
prosecution witnesses who were injured at the time of
incident and since the appellant had used fire arm which -,,,,
caused death of deceased and injuries to PW15- without
there being aggression by them, the order of conviction
H and sentence recorded by the trial Court and confirmed
SAT NARAIN v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. MINISTRY 247
OF HOME [C.K. THAKKER, J.]
, -t by the High Court against the appellant cannot be said to A
be illegal or contrary to law. It cannot be said that no case
for an offence punishable under Section 302 or 307, IPC
was made out against the appellant and at the most he
could be convicted for an offence punishable under
Section 304 (Part II) or (Part I) IPC. [Paras 22 and 27] [260-A, B
B; 258-G; 259-A]
Chanan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1979 (4) SCC 399 -
~ ~ distinguished.
Partap v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1976 (2) SCC 798; State
of U.P. v. Ram Swarup and Anr. 1974 (4) SCC 764 - relied
c
on.
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal
No. 38 of 2008.
From the final Judgment/Order dated 17 .8.2006 of the High D
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. A. No. 533-
DB/2004.
~
Puneet Bali, Satinder S. Gulati, Hiten Nehra and
Kamaldeep Narang for the Appellant.
E
Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem', Rajesh Ranjan and T.V. George
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted.
F
+ 2. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and
order passed by the Addi. Sessions Judge, Sirsa on May 5,
2004 in Sessiohs Case No. 140 of 1999/2003 and partly
confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana on August
17, 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.533-DB of 2004. G
3. The case of the prosecution was that the occurrence
took place on June 17, 1999 at about 3.30 a.m. In the said
"""' incident, one Chhotu Ram@ Lal Bahadurwas killed and PW14-
Ravinder Kumar-real brother of deceased Chhotu Ram, as <!lso
PW15-Sakeela-wife of deceased Chhotu Ram sustair~d H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A injuries. According to the prosecution, on that day, a telephonic +- '
message was received from ·Civil Hospital, Sangaria Police
Station by ASI Hari Ram relating to the incident. He, therefore,
reached Civil Hospital, Sangaria to find out whether injured
Ravinder Kumar, Chhotu Ram and Sakeela were in a position
8 to give statements. ASI Hari Ram also sent wireless message
to the Police Station, Sadar Dabwali. After some time, he
received an information that Chhotu Ram, injured had
succumbed to the injuries. Meanwhile, PW18-ASI Urned Singh ~ ~
of Sadar Clabwali Police Station reached the hospital at
c Sangaria and recorded the statement of injured Ravinder Kumar,
resident of Village Chamar Khera, Police Station Sadul Shahar,
District Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan wherein he stated that he was
the resident of Village Chamar Khera. His sister, Sunita Devi,
got married to one Darshan Singh, resident of Dhani Choutala.
On the previous day, i.e. on June 16, 1999, at about 8 p.m., the
D
complainant had gone to see his sister Sunita Devi at Dhani
Choutala where there was a quarrel between his brother-in-
law-Darshan Singh and Bablu, son of Sat Narain (appellant -f
herein). Darshan Singh then went to call Chhotu Ram
(deceased)-brother of the complainant, from Village Chamar
E Khera in a jeep. In the night at about 1.30 a.m., Darshan Singh
returned with deceased Chhotu Ram and his wife Sakeela. At
about 3.30 a.m. on June 17, 1999, Sat Narain (appellant herein)
armed with a gun, his son Bablu armed with a gandasi, his wife
Savitri armed with a kasoli and Avtar Singh armed with lathi
F came in a Maruti car at Dhani of Darshan Singh and stopped +
the car on the way. They started abusing Darshan Singh, his
wife and complainant Ravinder Kumar. Chhotu Ram (deceased)
asked Sat Narain to go back, saying that they would talk in the
morning. The complainant Ravinder Kumar with his brother
G Chhotu Ram (deceased) and Sakeela-PW15 then boarded a
jeep and all of them started for Village Sangaria. The deceased
Chhotu Ram was on the steering wheel of the jeep, complainant
Ravinder Kumar was sitting by his side and Sakeela was sitting
on the back seat. When their jeep reached near the car of the
H appellant, all accused raised a /alkara to teach a lesson to the
SAT NARAIN v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. MINISTRY 249
.OF HOME [C.K. THAKKER, J.]
• 1 complainant party for siding with Darshan Singh. The appellant A
Sat Narain fired a shot at Chhotu Ram from his licensed gun
with intention to kill him and the pellets hit the right shoulder of
the deceased. Sat Narain fired another shot towards the
complainant Ravinder Kumar but he saved himself by taking
shE!lter behind the jeep. The appellant fired third shot towards 8
Sakeela and the pellets hit on her right hand. Accused Bablu,
Savitri and Avtar Singh also caused injuries with their respective
~ weapons to the complainant party. The pellets also hit on front
portion of the jeep of the complainant party. They raised alarm
and on hearing the noise, Darshan Singh, Vikram Singh and c
Sunita came running and raised a lalkara that complainant party
need not be frightened and they had come. On seeing those
persons coming near the scene of offence, the accused fled
away with their respective weapons. The injured were then
shifted to Civil Hospital, Sangaria, .Chhotu Ram, however, D
succumbed to the injuries and died. The motive behind the attack
was ttie dispute between Darshan Singh on the one hand and
r- his brother Sat Narain on the other hand and complainant party
was supporting the case of Darshan Singh.
4. After the usual investigation, charges were framed E
against three accused persons-Bablu (A 1), son of Sat Narain
(appellant), Sat Narain (appellant) (A2) and Avtar Singh (A3).
Savitri was declared as proclaimed offender and the case could
not be proceeded against her.
-t 5. At the trial, the prosecution examined the complainant F
PW14-Ravinder Kumar, brother of deceased Chhotu Ram,
first informant and an injured eye-witness, Sakeela-PW15-wife
of deceased Chhotu Ram, another injured eye-witness. It also
examined PW12-Darshan Lal and PW13-Vikram to prove the
motive on the part of the accused persons in committing the G
crime.
6. In the statement under Section 313 of the Code of
. Criminal Procedure, 1973, accused Nos. 1 and 3 pleaded not
guilty. Their case was of total denial. According to them, they H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A were falsely implicated in the incident. So far as appellant Sat
Narain-accused No.2 is concerned, he admitted his presence
at the scene of offence. His defence, however, was that after
taking the turn of water in his field he was returning with his
licensed gun in the car. There the complainant party surrounded
B him and threatened to finish him. The appellant got frightened
and ran to save himself but the complainant party chased him
and stoppe~d him by striking the jeep against his car. The
complainant party was armed with deadly weapons. The
appellant-accused, in the circumstances, fired a shot in his
c defence which hit the deceased Chhotu Ram and on seeing
the injuries on the person of Chhotu Ram, the complainant party
ran away from the spot. It was, therefore, his case that he had
committed no offence and should be acquitted.
7. The trial Court, on the basis of prosecution evidence
D and considering the defence version particularly of accused No.2
(appellant herein), held that the prosecution was successful in
proving the incident in question. It was also established from
the evidence that the complainant party was not the aggressor. i
No right of self defence was, therefore, available to appellant
E Sat Narain. From the injuries sustained by the deceased Chhotu
Ram, PW14-Ravinder Kumar (complainant) and PW15-
Sakeela, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellant accused had used gun which caused death of
deceased Chhotu Ram and injuries to Sakeela. Accused Bablu
F and Avtar Singh had also caused injuries to deceased Chhotu
Ram, Ravinder Kumar and Sakeela. Accordingly, the trial Court
convicted the appellant herein for an offence punishable under
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) for causing
death of deceased Chhotu Ram and sentenced him to undergo
G rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-,
in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment
for two years. It also convicted the appellant for an offence
punishable under Section 307, IPC for attempt to commit murder
of Sakeela, wife of deceased Chhotu Ram, and ordered him to
H undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
SAT NARAIN v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. MINISTRY 251
OF HOME [C.K. THAKKER, J]
• 1 default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for A
one year. The Court also convicted the appellant for an offence
punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34,
IPC for causing injuries to Ravinder Kumar and Sakeela.
Accused Avtar Singh was thus convicted for an offence
punishable under Sections 302 and 307, IPC substantively. He B
was also convicted and sentenced for committing offences
punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34,
-\ IPC. Accused Nos.1 Bablu and 3 Avtar Singh were also
convicted by the trial Court.
8. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and c
sentence, all the three accused preferred Criminal Appeals
before the High Co~rt. The State of Haryana and complainant
.Ravinder Kumar filed Revision Petitions. All the matters were
taken up by the High Court together. The High Court, by the
impugned order, dismissed both the Revisions filed by the State D
and the complainant. It allowed Criminal Appeals of accused
'>-
No.1-Bablu and accused No.3-Avtar Singh and held that it was
' not proved beyond reasonable doubt that they had committed
the offences with which they were charged. Hence, by giving
benefit of doubt, the High Court acquitted them. E
9. So far as the appellant is concerned, the High Court, in
the light of acquittal recorded in favour of accused Nos. 1 and
3, acquitted him for the offences punishable under Sections 323
and 324 read with Section 34, IPC. But the High Court held that
.. the appellant was rightly convicted by the trial Court for offences F
punishable under Section 302, IPC substantively as also under
Section 307, IPC substantively. Accordingly, the order of
con\Yiction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the
appellant in respect of those offences was confirmed.
\.J
10. Against the order passed .bY the High Court acquitting
~ Bablu and Avtar Singh, complainant Ravinder Kumar had
approached this Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No. 1274 of 2006 which was dismissed on January
15, 2007. In the present matter by accused No.2-Sat Narain, H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A notice was issued on March 7, 2007. Records and proceedings t •
were thereafter called for and the matter was ordered to be
placed for hearing on a non-miscellaneous day.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
B 12. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that
both the Courts were wrong in convicting the appellant. It was
submitted that when the other two accused were aC'luitted· by
the High Court, the appellant could not have been convicted on ,_
the basis of the same evidence. Acquittal of other accused goes
c to show that the case of the prosecution was not reliable and it
was not proved that the incident took place in the manner as
described by the prosecution. The appellant, in the
circumstances, ought to have been granted benefit of doubt. It
was urged that the case of the appellant was that the complainant
party was the aggressor and in exercise of right of private
0
defence, the appellant was compelled to use licensed fire arm.
Only one shot was fired which resulted into unfortunate death of
Chhotu Ram and injuries to Sakeela. The fire arm, however, ~
was used because there was reasonable apprehension in the
mind of the appellant that if he would not use it, he would either
E be killed or seriously injured. Both the'"Courts were, therefore,
wrong in not giving benefit of right of self defence. Finally, it was
urged that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,- at
the most, it was a case of exceeding of right of self defence.
The Courts ought to have considered the facts of the case and
F ought not to have convicted the appellant for an offence ._
. punishable under Section 302, IPC for causing death of
deceased Chhotu Ram and ought not to have awarde.d
imprisonment for life. The Courts were also in error in convicting
the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC
G for attempt to commit murder of PW15-Sakeela, wife of
deceased Chhotu Ram and in awarding imprisonment for life
which is the maximum penalty. It was, therefore, submitted that 'II'
in any case, the conviction of the appellant should be converted
for an offence punishable under Section 304, Part II or under
H Section 304, Part I and to that extent, the appeal deserves to
SAT NARAIN v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. MINISTRY 253
OF HOME [C.K. THAKKER, J.]
~ -.i be allowed. A
13. The learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted
that murder of deceased Chhotu Ram was committed by the
appellant-accused N-o.2 when the members of the complainant
party, who were unarmed, were going to their village in a jeep.
According to the counsel, they were prevented from proceeding B
towards the village by putting Maruti car in the way which caused .
-1 obstruction and the complainant party was attacked by the
accused party. The counsel submitted that the appellant herein
had fired three shots, out of them one injured deceased Chhotu
Ram who succumbed to the injuries, the second shot was aimed C
at complainant Ravinder Kumar but he escaped it by taking
shelter behind the jeep and the third shot injured Sakeela, wife
of the deceased. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence,
believed the story of the prosecution witnesses so far as the
role of the appellant is concerned and convicted him. The High D
Court confirmed the view taken by the trial Court. In the
~ circumstances, acquittal of other two accused by the High Court
would not make conviction and finding recorded against the
appellant vulnerable. It was also submitted that in the totality of
facts, both the Courts were right in convicting the appellant for E
an offence punishable under Section 302 as also under Section.
307, IPC and in imposing imprisonment for life and the order
does not suffer from any infirmity.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our
opinion, no case has been m~de out for interference by this F
Court against the order passed by the trial Court and confirmed
by the High Court so far as the present appellant is concerned.
As already noted by us, both the Courts believed the story of
the prosecution, particularly evidence of PW14-complainant
Ravinder Kumar, real brother of the deceased and injured as G
also PW15-Sakeela, wife of deceased Chhotu Ram, another
injured eye-witness. The Courts rightly held that the appellant
fired three times. The resultant effect was loss of life by Chhotu
Ram and injuries to Sakeela, wife of Chhqtu Ram. The appellant
also tried to hit the complainant Ravinder Kumar but he could H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A escape himself by taking shelter of his vehicle Ueep) and thus
could avoid injury by a fire arm. From the evidence, it is also
clearly established and believed by the Courts that the appellant
had re-loaded his gun which proves his intention to kill Chhotu
Ram and attempt to kill other members of the complainant party.
B 15. So far as right of self defence is concerned, in our
opinion, both the Courts were right in holding that the complainant
party was not the aggressor. It is also clear from intrinsic
evidence and circumstances, viz. (i) presence of Sakeela at
the time of occurrence at 3.30 a.m.; (ii) complainant side was
C unarmed and empty handed; (iii) all the injured persons were
from complainant's family, etc. It has also come in evidence that
it was the accused side who abused the complainant party.
Deceased Chhotu Ram tried to pacify the accused stating that
they would discuss the matter in the morning. Accused party,
D however, did not oblige the deceased and the complainant party
and did not allow them to leave. When the complainant party left
the place for going to their village in a jeep, they found Maruti
car of the accused in the way which prevented them from
proceeding towards their village and at that stage, the accused
E attacked them. In the circumstances, in our opinion, it cannot
be said that either the trial Court or the High Court had
committed any error of fact or of law in convicting the appellant.
16. The trial Court considered the defence of the appellant
and his right of self defence. Dealing with the evidence on record
F and negating the defence theory, it observed;
"There is no reason to disbelieve the oral assertions of
the prosecution witnesses which has been well
corroborated from the medial evidence. Even the
G occurrence has been admitted by the accused. Even the
accused Sat Narain has taken the plea of self defence.
The accused have also admitted the presence of the
witnesses Ravinder Kumar Sakila, Vikram Singh, Darshan
Lal and deceased Chhotu Ram at the place of occurrence.
The defence version of the accused is that the complainant
H
i
~ SAT NARAIN v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. MINISTRY 255
OF HOME [C.K. THAKKER, J.]
~· -i party was the aggressor. They attacked accused Sat A
Narain and the accused Sat Narain in his self defence
opened fire but except the suggestion put to the
prosecution witnesses there is no evidence on behalf of
the accused to proye that the complainant party ever
chased accused Sat Narain armed with deadly weapons B
with intention to harm his person and property. So, the
plea of self defence set up by the accused fails. There is
~ specific evidence against the accused that accused Sat
Narain was armed with the double barrel licensed gun,
accused Bablu was armed with a gandasi, accused Avtar c
Singh was armed with a Lathi and accused Savitri (since
declared proclaimed offender) was armed with a kasuli.
They all came to the Dhani of Darshan Lal at 3.30 a.m. at
night. So, their common intention can be inferred. Had
they no common intention to cause the death of Chhotu
D
Ram, they might not have come to the Dhani of Darshan
Lal (PW12) at odd hours armed with deadly weapons.
'.>-
Specific injury and role has been attributed to each of the
accused. The testimony of the witness namely Darshan
Lal (PW12), Vikram Singh (PW13), Ravinder Kumar,
complainant/injured (PW14) and Sakeela, injured (PW15) E
is well corroborated by Dr. R.C. Ola (PW7) and medico
legal reports Ex.PE, Ex.PG and Ex.PH and post mortem
report Ex.PM. Hence, it is proved that the accused on
17 .6.1999 in the area of village Choutala accused Sat
~ Narain in furtherance of common intention of his co- F
accused Bablu, Avtar Singh and Savitri (proclaimed
offender) caused the death of Chhotu Ram alias Lal
Bahadur by firing shot at him and he also fired at Sakeela
in furtherance of common intention of his remaining
accused with the intention to cause her death and accused G
Avtar Singh and Bablu in furtherance of common intention
of his co-accused Sat Narain, and Savitri (since declared
proclaimed offender) caused simple hurt with sharp and
blunt weapon to Ravinder Kumar. Therefore, the accused
committed offences punishable under Section 302, 307, H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal t- ~
· Code. So, accused Sat Narain is held guilty for the
commission of offences punishable under Section 302
and 307 of the Indian Penal Code whereas accused Bablu
and Avtar Singh are held guilty for the commission of
B .offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused
Bablu and Avtar Singh are further held guilty for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 /-
and 324 of the Indian Penal Cod~ and accused Sat Narain
c is held guilty for the commission of offences punishable
under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and are convicted thereunder
accordingly".
17. It is no doubt true that the High Court allowed the
D appeals of the other two accused, i.e. accused Nos. 1 and 3
extending benefit of doubt to them observing that they might
have been roped belatedly. But to us, the High Court was wholly
right in holding that when accused No.2 (appellant) had admitted
his presence at the scene of offence as also use of fire-arm
E and pleaded the right of self defence, there was no question of
his alibi. It was, therefore, for him to place before the Court the
circumstances in which he exercised the said right. We are
conscious and mindful that a right of private defence cannot be
weighed in a 'golden scale' and even in. absence of physical
F injury, in a given case, such right may be upheld by the Court +-
provided there is reasonable apprehension to life or grievous
hurt to such person. We are equally aware of settled legal
position that the onus of proof on the accused as to exercise of
right of private defence is not as heavy as on the prosecution to
G prove guilt of the accused and it is sufficient for him to prove the
defence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. But
in the instant case, from the facts and evidence on record, the
right of self defence was not at all available to the appellant.
The complainant party was unarmed and also not an aggressor.
It was the appellant, who came with a loaded gun and fired shots
H
SAT NARAIN v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. MINISTRY 257
OF HOME [C.K. THAKKER, J..]
~ .., one after the other which resulted in death of Chhotu Ram, injury A
to Sakeela, though Ravinder Kumar could avoid the shot and
remained unhurt. The gun was re"loaded by the appellant which
goes a long way to exhibit his intention to finish the complainant
side.
18. The trial Court, in the light of the evidence, did not grant B
benefit of private defence to the appellant. The High Court again
"1· considered the plea of the accused and negatived it by observing
as under;
"lfwe take the plea as set up by Sat Narain to be true then c
in that eventuality some one else along with Chhotu Ram,
Sakeela and Ravinder would have certainly received some
injuries. It is not so. The hired person~ do not come without
any weapon. Sat Narain does not say a word about any
weapon being carried by the complainant side. He simply
D
states that he was attacked by them. This goes to show
that at the time of occurrence there was no one else except
Chhotu Ram, his wife and Ravinder who were going to
village Babrian from Dhani of Darshan Lal. If the entire
scene is visualized in the present set of circumstances, it
can be said that the plea raised by Sat Narain to the effect E
that he was called in the Dhani and threatened by Chhotu
Ram and others goes against him for the reason that in
any case he had the grudge in his bosom against Chhotu
Ram (since deceased)' an outsider for extending help to
-t Darshan Lal. Chhotu Ram in any case would not be the. F
aggressor"
19. The High Court rightly concluded;
''Therefore, in our considered view, it is a clear case of
murder for which he deserves to be punished under Section G
--.. 302, IPC".
20. Regarding an offence punishable under Section 307
IPC, the High Court stated;
"We have also appreciated the case of the prosecution H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
t •
A with regard tp charge of Section 307 IPC qua Sat Narain
appellant. We do find some discrepancies in the eye-
version account vis-a-vis the investigation conducted but
the same is of no help to him. The case set up by the
prosecution is that Sat Narain had fired three shots; one
B at Chhotu Ram hitting on his right side; second at Ravinder,
who incidentally escaped unhurt and the third at Sakeela
causing her injuries, who was sitting behind Chhotu Ram
~
on the back seat of the jeep. The substantive evidence
before us is that the gun was reloaded by Sat Narain. The
c argument advanced by Mr. Ghai is that only one shot was
fired by Sat-Narain and a crude padding has been done
by the investigating agency in connivance with the
complainant side in order to project it as a case of
repeated firing of shots is of no consequence as we have
already held him guilty for the charge under Section 302
D
IPC substantively for causing murder of Chhotu Ram. Still
after rescanning the entire case in its right perspective,
1
we are of the firm view that it is a case of more than one
shots, causing pellet injuries to Sakeela PW also.
Therefore, the conviction of Sat Narain appellant under
E Section 307 IPC also deserves to be re-affirmed.
Resultantly his conviction under Sections 302 IPC and
307 IPC is upheld".
21. It may be mentioned here that the trial Court had
F convicted acc}Jsed Nos. 1 and 3 also but the High Court felt that +-
they were entitled to benefit of doubt and hence they were
ordered to be acquitted. But that does not mean that the
appellant who had used his gun, killed deceased Chhotu Ram
and also attempted to kill Sakeela and Ravinder Kumar is entitled
to acquittal or that his conviction and sentence was not in
G
consonance with law.
..--
22. We are also not impressed by the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant that no case for an offence
punishable under Section 302 or 307, IPOwas made out against
H the appellant and at the most he could be convicted for an offence
SAT NARAIN v. STATE OF HARYANA TH. MINISTRY 259
OF HOME (C.K. THAKKER, J.]
• • punishable under Section 304 Part II or Part I, IPC. A
23. The counsel drew our attention toa decision in Chanan
Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 4 SCC 399. In that case,
reversing the order passed by the High Court and extending
. the benefit of right of self defence, ~his Court set aside the
conviction of the appellant-accused. In our opinion, however, 8
the facts of Chanan Singh were totally different. As observed in
the decision, even the High Cot.irt had observed in the order
that it was difficult to hold that the eye-witnesses in the case
had given true version of the fight. The presence of injuries on
the persons of the accused went to show that there was a quarrel C
between them on one side and the complainant party on the
other and the prosecution did not put forward the genesis and
the origin of fight correctly. Obviously, therefore, this Court held
that the High Court was wrong in convicting the accused.
24. In the instant case, both the Courts believed the D
prosecution version and we are satisfied that the Courts were
right in relying on the evidence of prosecution and in holding
that they were not aggressors and the appellant could not ~ave
claimed right of private defence.
E
25. Partap v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1976) 2 SCC 798
also does not take the case of the appellant anywhere. There it .
was held that burden to prove plea of self defence on the accused
is not as onerous as that which lies on the prosecution. We are
in respectful agreement with the said proposition of law. It is F
settled law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. But it is sufficient if the accused, when he is
called upon to take a defence, proves it on the basis of
reasonable probability. He need not prove it beyond reasonable
doubt. But in the instant case, complainant party was not the G
aggressor and the right of self defence was not available to the
appellant and h£mce he could not have committed death of
Chhotu Ram nor could have caused injuries to Sakeela.
26. State of UP v. Ram Swarup & Anr, (1974) 4 SCC
764 is again on a question of law and as stated by us, law is H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A well settled on the point and even the State counsel has not ' ~
disputed the availability of right of private defence to accused
under the IPC.
27. Since both the Courts were right in believing
prosecution witnesses who were injured at the time of incident
B and since the appellant had used fire arm which caused death
of deceased Chhotu Ram and injuries to PW15-Sakeela without
there being aggression by them, the order of conviction and
sentence recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High
Court against the appellant cannot be said illegal or contrary to
C law. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
28. For the foregoing reasons, the order of conviction and
sentence recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High
Court against the appellant is legal, valid and in consonance
with. law and calls for no interference. The appeal is, therefore,
0
dismissed.
N.J. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "private defence"Sign in to search