RAKESH DUTT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the 'IPC'). However, the Trial Court, upon examining the evidence available on record, was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part I of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the same was confirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the appellant has come before this Court.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The appellant is a medical practitioner. There was enmity between the appellant and the deceased over a money transaction. The deceased, armed with a pistol, went to the clinic of the appellant and shot him. Thereafter, the appellant snatched the pistol from the deceased and shot him down. Both the appellant and the deceased registered FIRs against each other. As the deceased had died, the FIR registered against him was closed and the appellant was charged for the offence as aforestated.

(3.) Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that even if the version of the prosecution is taken as such, it would only be a case of exercise of right of private defence by the appellant. The nature of the injury suffered would be insignificant and the right of private defence cannot be calculated with arithmetical precision. The appellant ought not to have been charged for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the IPC and in any case, the offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part I of the IPC is also not made out. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2010) 2 SCC 333.