The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rakesh Dutt Sharma vs. State of Uttarakhand, has acquitted a medical practitioner convicted for culpable homicide, holding that his actions fell within the purview of the right of private defence. A bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh set aside the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, which had sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment.
Background of the Case
The facts of the case were not in dispute. The appellant, Rakesh Dutt Sharma, is a medical practitioner who had an existing enmity with the deceased over a money transaction. The deceased, armed with a pistol, went to the appellant’s clinic and shot him. Following this initial attack, the appellant snatched the pistol from the deceased and shot him, causing his death.
Both parties had registered First Information Reports (FIRs) against each other. However, due to the demise of the aggressor, the FIR against him was closed. The appellant was subsequently charged under Section 302 (Murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court later upheld this conviction and sentence, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments Presented
Appearing for the appellant, Senior Counsel Mr. S. Nagamuthu argued that the prosecution’s own version of events pointed to a clear case of the exercise of the right of private defence. He submitted that the nature of the injury suffered by the appellant was insignificant, as “the right of private defence cannot be calculated with arithmetical precision.” He contended that the charge under Section 302 IPC was unwarranted, and the conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC was also not made out. In support, he relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2010) 2 SCC 333.
Conversely, the counsel for the State of Uttarakhand vehemently argued that the appellant had exceeded his right of private defence. The State’s argument was based on the post-mortem report and the evidence of the doctor, which indicated that the deceased was shot on vital parts of the body. The counsel asserted that both the Trial Court and the High Court had correctly taken note of this fact.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court bench began its analysis by establishing a crucial fact: “the deceased was the aggressor. He was the one who went to the clinic of the appellant, armed with a pistol and attacked him.” The Court noted that the appellant’s subsequent attack on the deceased was in retaliation.
The bench fully endorsed the appellant’s argument, stating, “the right of private defence cannot be brushed aside and cannot be weighed in a golden scale.” The Court emphasized that its approach in such matters “shall not be pedantic” and that the situation should be viewed from the perspective of a “common and reasonable person.”
In a key observation, the Court stated: “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 heavily relied on the principles laid down in the Darshan Singh case, which culled law from several previous judgments. The judgment quoted a passage from Buta Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1991) 2 SCC 612, which observed: “a person who is apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales in the spur of moment and in the heat of circumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm the assailants who were armed with weapons. In moments of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium it is often difficult to expect the parties to preserve composure and use exactly only so much force in retaliation commensurate with the danger apprehended to him where assault is imminent…”
The principles reiterated by the Court included that self-preservation is a basic human instinct, the right commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger arises, and it is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to “modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude.”
Final Decision
Applying these established principles to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court concluded, “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.”
The appeal was allowed, and the appellant, Rakesh Dutt Sharma, was acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds were discharged.
