Right of private defence cannot be weighed in golden scale: Supreme Court acquits doctor accused of killing assailant

The Supreme Court on September 5, 2025 set aside the conviction of a medical practitioner sentenced to life imprisonment for culpable homicide, holding that he was entitled to exercise his right of private defence when he shot dead an assailant who had attacked him with a pistol.

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh acquitted the appellant, Rakesh Dutt Sharma, who had been convicted under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial court had held him guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.

The case arose from a long-standing dispute between the appellant and the deceased over a money transaction. On the day of the incident, the deceased entered the appellant’s clinic armed with a pistol and fired at him, causing injury. The appellant managed to snatch the weapon and in the course of the confrontation fired back, killing the deceased. Both parties filed FIRs against each other, but after the death of the assailant, the case against him was closed and the appellant faced trial.

The defence argued that even on the prosecution version, the act amounted to nothing more than an exercise of the right of private defence. It was submitted that the appellant could not have been expected to exercise his rational faculties with precision when faced with a deadly assault. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Darshan Singh v State of Punjab (2010).

The state argued that the appellant had exceeded his right of private defence by using disproportionate force, as shown in the post-mortem report and medical evidence.

The Supreme Court, however, observed that the deceased was the aggressor, having initiated the attack with a pistol. The Court noted, “When an attack is sought to be made on the accused-appellant 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 bench said that in such cases the right of private defence cannot be judged with mathematical exactitude, and the approach of the courts should not be pedantic. It relied on the settled principles in Darshan Singh which affirm that self-preservation is a basic instinct, that a reasonable apprehension of danger is enough to trigger the right, and that it is unrealistic to expect a person under attack to modulate his defence with arithmetical precision.

The Court reiterated that while the force used should not be wholly disproportionate, the test is to be applied from the standpoint of a reasonable person under imminent threat. It further noted that even if an accused does not specifically plead private defence, the plea can be inferred if it arises from the record.

Setting aside the conviction, the bench observed, “We have no hesitation in setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and that of the High Court,” and acquitted the appellant of all charges.

Case Title: Rakesh Dutt Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Judgment Date: September 5, 2025

Bench: Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh