Criminal Law

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab

(2010) 2 SCC 333

Facts

Darshan Singh, his father Bakhtawar Singh and the deceased Gurcharan Singh were close relatives.
Their agricultural fields adjoined one another.
A dispute existed concerning field boundaries and ridges.
A violent confrontation occurred in the fields.
The prosecution alleged that:
Darshan carried a double-barrel gun;
Bakhtawar carried a gandasa;
they attacked Gurcharan.
The defence version was that Gurcharan first struck Bakhtawar on the head with a gandasa.
Bakhtawar fell after receiving the injury.
Gurcharan then advanced toward Darshan while still carrying the weapon.
Darshan stated that he believed his father had been killed and that he himself faced death or grievous hurt.
He fired his licensed gun, killing Gurcharan.
The trial court acquitted Darshan on the ground of private defence.
The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted him.
Darshan appealed to the Supreme Court.

Whether Darshan had a right of private defence of his own body and his father’s body.
Whether the right extended to causing Gurcharan’s death.
Whether the force used was wholly disproportionate.
What standard of proof applies to an accused relying on private defence.

The right of private defence:
is based on self-preservation;
begins when reasonable apprehension of danger arises;
continues while the danger remains;
is defensive, not retaliatory.
Actual injury need not occur before the right begins.
Under Section 100 IPC, the right may extend to causing death where the assault creates reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
A defender is not required to:
retreat like a coward;
calculate defensive force with arithmetical precision;
wait for the assailant to strike again.
Force must not be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary.
The accused need not prove private defence beyond reasonable doubt.
It is sufficient to establish the plea on a preponderance of probabilities, including through prosecution evidence.
Even if not expressly pleaded, the court may consider private defence where it arises from the record.

The injuries suffered by Bakhtawar were important objective evidence.
They supported the defence version that the complainant side was not entirely passive.
The prosecution’s account contained inconsistencies concerning:
the alleged firearm injuries to other witnesses;
the location and nature of the gandasa injuries;
who initiated the assault.
The trial court found it probable that Gurcharan struck Bakhtawar and then moved toward Darshan with the weapon.
Darshan was confronted with:
his injured father lying before him;
an armed person advancing;
an immediate possibility of death or grievous hurt.
In that moment, he was not expected to pause and determine the exact number of pellets or the least harmful angle of fire.
The gunshot was fired while the apprehended danger was continuing.
It was not shown that Darshan pursued Gurcharan after the threat ended or fired in revenge.
The Court therefore found the force connected with immediate protection.
The High Court had replaced a plausible acquittal with its own view without adequately addressing the trial court’s reasoning.
The defence version was not merely possible; it was strongly supported by the circumstances.
Darshan had therefore established the right of private defence, and the prosecution had failed to exclude it.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court’s acquittal.
Darshan’s firing was fully covered by the right of private defence.
The Court consolidated ten major principles governing self-defence, including reasonable apprehension, proportionality, duration and burden of proof.
Use this case for: a person facing an imminent and reasonable danger of death or grievous hurt may use lethal defensive force and need not measure it with exact precision.