Institute of Legal and Management Studies

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 –

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