Holding

The High Court’s acquittal was upheld as it was not perverse or palpably erroneous; the respondent’s use of a firearm was justified under Section 100 IPC because he was assaulted with dandas and faced a reasonable apprehension of death.

Summary

In an altercation on the GT Road in 1976, Sub‑Inspector Ajaib Singh shot and killed Assistant Sub‑Inspector Gurnam Singh and Constable Paramjit Singh. The trial court convicted Singh under Section 302 IPC and the Arms Act, but the Punjab & Haryana High Court acquitted him, holding that he acted in private defence under Section 100 IPC. The State appealed, arguing that Singh could not use a firearm when attacked only with dandas and that the High Court’s view was perverse. The Supreme Court examined whether the assault created a reasonable apprehension of death and whether the High Court’s finding was palpably erroneous. It held that the facts showed Singh was assaulted with dandas, suffered nine injuries, and therefore had a reasonable apprehension of death, justifying the use of his service revolver under Section 100. Consequently, the High Court’s acquittal was upheld and the appeal dismissed, with the respondent ordered to pay compensation to the victims’ families.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the High Court's acquittal under Section 100 IPC and whether it was perverse or palpably erroneous.
Whether the respondent was justified in using a firearm when the assailants employed only dandas.
Interpretation of 'reasonable apprehension of death' under Section 100 IPC.
Whether the delay in the proceedings warranted any relief or compensation.
The propriety of the Government’s reinstatement and promotion of the officer during pendency of the appeal.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1950s. 27, s. 87
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 100, s. 302

Subjects

private defenceSection 100 IPCmurderpolice officerspeedy trialcompensationgovernment promotionsealed cover procedurecriminal jurisprudence

Judgment

A STATE OF PUNJAB
v. -;.--
AJAIB SINGH

JANUARY 20, 1995

B [P.B. SAWANT AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.)

Penal Code 186~Section 100 First and Secondly-Exercise of right of
private defence resulting in deatlt-Two policemen killed in altercation be-
~
"
tween police officers on authority to check trucks-Whether accused entitled
c to use of fireann where he was attacked by dandas-Held, whether assault
such as to cause reasonable apprehension that death would otherwise be the
conseqence depends on facts of each case-In the facts of the case, held,
interference with acquittal by High Court not wa"anted-Dependants of
deceased to be compensated from Rs. 5 lakhs which accused had offered out
of remorse-S. 302-Criminal appea'l--Compensation.
D
Criminal Jurisprudence-Speedy trial, early hearing and quick disposa~
held, sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence-Mechanism to clear backlog or
to dispose of criminal appeals pending for more than reasonable time in
higher courts recommended-Further, reinstatement and promotion of police
E officer during pendency of appeal on charge of murder deprecated-Sealed
cover procedure, held, should have been adopted-Service law.

Criminal Triaf-Appeal against acquittal-Held, duty of court hearing
appeal against acquittal is to satisfy itself whether view of acquitting court a

-
possible view-Finding of High Court neither perverse nor infinn nor palpably
:r 1-.
F erroneous-Acquittal upheld-Section 100, First and Secondly, lPC.

An altercation between two officers nf the Punjab Police on the
authority to check trucks on the GT Road resulted in the death of an ASI
and a Constable. The trial court convicted the respondent under S. 302 ,..
G IPC and S.27 of the Arms Act 1950. In revision, the High Court accepted
his plea of private defence, and acquitted him.
'M
There was no dispute about the time, date or place of the incident.

The trial court did not credit the version of the prosecution, but
H based its conviction on the injuries found on the person of the respondent
496
STATE OF PB. v. A SINGH 497

which, it held, did not justify exercise of the right of private defence. A
The High Court, while agreeing with the findings of the trial court,
further held that the prosecution story explaining the presence of the
/
deceased did not inspire confidence, and concluded that the deceased and
his .companions were checking trucks and extracting money from the truck
drivers; therefore the respondent must have felt offended as it amounted B
to unnecessary interference in his jurisdiction and even to an illegal act of
extracting money from the drivers. The High Court also reversed the
finding of the trial court that the injuries were self- inflicted.

In appeal before this Court, the right of private defence was urged C
on behalf of the respondent. It was contended that it was a case of mistaken
identity for which the deceased himself was responsible. Arguing that the
delay in criminal cases should not be lost sight of, and that at this distance
I
of time it was just and expedient to compensate the deceased family
r monetarily instead of entering into whether the respondent was liable to
be convicted, counsel for the respondent offered Rs. 5 lakhs as a genuine D
feeling of remorse for what had happened under mistaken belief.

For the appellant it was urged that once the incident was admitted,
the burden was on the respondent to establish that he acted in exercise of
the right of private defence; that where no firearm had been used by the E
deceased party, the respondent was not justified in shooting and killing
two persons; and that it was apparent from the nature of injuries that it
was a cold- blooded murder.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court
F
HELD : 1. It shall depend on the facts of each case whether the
assault was such as could cause reasonable apprehension that death would·
otherwise be the consequence of such assault. The respondent had nine
injuries. They have been found not to be self-inflicted. He was attacked by
the deceased and his companions. The trial judge found that there was no G
previous enmity. The submission that the respondent was not entitled to
use firearm as he was attacked with dandas only cannot be accepted. That
is not what is provided by clauses (I) and (II) of Section 100 IPC.
[505-D-C]
2. The finding of the High Court is neither perverse nor infirm nor H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 1 S.C.R.

A palpably erro_neous. While a court hearing appeal against acquittal is not
prevented from examining and reappredating the evidence on the record,
the duty of such court is to satisfy itself whether the view taken by the
acquitting court was possible view or not. The prosecution «;ase has not \
been found authentic even by the trial judge being solely based on failure
B to establish that the respondent had not exceeded his right of self-defence.
The order of acquittal passed by the High Court upheld. (504-H, 505-EJ

3. Speedy trial, early bearing and quick disposal are sine qua non of
&'
criminal jurisprudence. Keeping an accused in custody for a day more
than necessary is constitutionally impermissible and violative of human
C dignity. The overcrowded court dockets, the phenomenal rise of public
interest litigation, duty to ensure enforcement of fundamental rights un-
doubtedly keeps this court under stress and strain. But that cannot be an
excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an
indefinite period of time. If the courts have been rendered helpless and the
exasperating delay is threatending to eat away the system then the govern-
D ment may consider either to increase the strength to clear the backlog or
devise some mechanism by which criminal appeals pending for more than
reasonable time in higher courts should stand disposed of. (504-A-D]

4. The manner in which the government not only reinstated, but
E promoted the officer when the appeal by it against his acquittal was
pending in this Court is disapproved. The government would hatre been
well advised to adopt the sealed cover procedure, a firmly established and
well known practice in service law. Murder by a pa:t..-e officer is provoca-
tive. The confidence of the common man is shakeb wben a person who is
F standing trial in appeal is promoted. (505-G-H, 506-A]
,_
S. The respondent shall deposit Rs. S lakhs within a period of one ,,_
month as was offered on his behalf. Out of this amount, Rs. 3,S0,000 will
be paid to the dependants of ASI Gurnam Singh, and Rs. 1,S0,000 to the
dependants of constable Paramjit Singh. (506-B]
G
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
754of1980.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.5.80 of the Punjab &
H Haryana High' Court in Crl. A No. 738 of 1978.
STATE OF PB. v. A. ~INGH (SAHAI, J.) 499

Sushil Kumar, R.S. Suri and ~s. Arnita Gupta for the Appellant. A

U.R. Lalit, M.C. Dhingra ancLRP. Wadhwani for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.M. SAHAI, J. In this appeal by grant of special leave under Article B
136 of the Constitution of India the question that arises for consideration
is whether the Order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana is so palpably erroneous or perverse that it is liable to interference
in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court.

In an unfortunate incident which took place at 11 P.M. on 16th C
December, 1976 on the G.T. Road just in front of Sat Kartar Cold Storage,
Phagwara, two police officers of the Punjab Traffic Police appeared to have
fallen out on the authority to check the truck on the G.T. Road resulting
in death of one Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and one constable and
conviction of the respondent under Section 302 IPC who was Sub-Inspector D
of Police at the time of incident, but since the date of acquittal he has now
become Deputy Superintendent of Police. There was no dispute about the -
time, date and place of incident. Nor there was any dispute that Assistant
Sub-Inspector Gurnam Singh and constable Paramjit Singh died as a result
of shooting from the service revolver by the Sub-Inspector Ajaib Singh. The E
dispute, mainly, was whether the incident took place as stated by the
prosecution and the shooting and killing by the respondent was unwar-
ranted, unjustified and deliberate or it was, as claimed by the respondent,
in exercise of right of private· defence. The respondent was tried and
convicted under Section 302 for committing murder of ASI Gurnam Singh
and constable Paramjit Singh and sentenced by the trial judge to undergo F
life imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 87 of the Arms
Act and sentenced to undergo two ·y~ars' rigorous imprisonment. All the
sentences were to run concurrently. His co-accused Balbir Kumar was tried
under Section 302 ·but convicted under Section 383 IPC for causing simple
hurts to constable Jit Ram, P.W. 10 and Channan Singh, P.W. 13. He was G
directed to be released on probation. Another accused constable Jit Singh
was acquitted of all charges. The State did not file any appeal either against
release of Balbir Kumar on probation or acquittal of Jit Singh. But revision
was filed by one Sukattar Singh for enhancing the sentence of respondent
from life imprisonment to death and convicting others suitably. The High H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

.A Court dismissed the revision for enhancing sentence and f~rther acquitted
the respondent. The State is aggrieved by acquittal of the respondent. Since +- :
~

both the trial judge and the High Court have considered the evidence in
detail, it does not appear necessary to refer to them, except the findings
arrived by them on which there is not much dispute. The findings recorded
by the trial judge were summarised by the High Court as under :-
B
"(1) That the incident took place at about 10 P.M. on 15th Decem-
ber, 1976, on the G.T. Road just opposite to the Sat Kartar
Cold Storage at Phagwara;
.......
'
c (2) That all the three accused (Ajaib Singh and Balbir Kumar
appellants and Jit Singh acquitted accused) were present at ..
the spot and they had arrived there from the side of Ludhiana
in jeep No. PUJ 250.

(3) That at that time AS.I. Gurnam Singh along with Constables
D Paramjit Singh and Jit Ram was present at the spot. Accord-
_..,-....
ing to the prosecution version, Constable Chanan Singh, P.W.
was also with them. However, that fact is denied by the
accused.
,_
(4) That before the main incident took place, a verbal altercation
E
took place between AS.I. Gurnam. Singh deceased and SJ.
Ajaib Singh accused and thereafter they also grappled with
each other for some time.
).-- \..
(5) That S.I. Ajaib Singh fired three shots with his service revolv-
F er, one of which hit AS.I. .Gurnam Singh and another hit
· Constable Paramjit Singh and as a result thereof both of them
had died at the spot. The third shot hit the shutter of the
cycle shop of Subhash Chand situated near the place of the·
occurrence."

G Apart from these findings, the trial judge held that the delay in lodging the
FIR was not satisfactorily e~lained by the prosecution. He did not believe
that the two constables who tad accompanied the deceased would have
hid themselves in the nearby eld for the whole night and then lodged the
~
.,
report at 8.40 AM. in the morttlng only after they came out from the field.
H The trial judge was not convinced that any reasonable person· could have
STATE OF PB. v. A. SINGH [SAHAI, J.) 501
remained in the field in the wintery night on 16th December without any A

-- covering when the accused undisputedly left the place immediately after
the incident. Another important finding recorded by the trial judge was
that the version of the origin of the incident, as given by the accused, was
acceptable in preference to one put forward by the prosecution. The trial
judge did not believe that the deceased was caught hold of by Balbir Singh
and Jit Singh and thereafter the respondent fired the shot. Nor did it find
B
any truth. in the version of the prosecution that Paramjit Singh was thrown
down on the ground by Balbir Singh and Jit Kumar and then a shot was
fired at him from point blank range by the respondent. But the conviction
was based as the injuries found on the person of the respondent did not
justify exercise of right of private defence. c
The High Court while agreeing with the findings of the trial judge on
these aspects further held that the story given by the prosecution that the
deceased had gone to the spot for nakabandi for apprehending the robbers
did not inspire confidence as there was no entry to that effect in the D
Rojnamacha (daily diary) of the Police Station, Kapurthala. The High
Court held that no material was brought on record to prove the First
Information Report of the case in which those robbers were wanted.
Further, according to the High Court, it Was not reasonable to believe that
Assistant Sub-Inspector Gurnam Singh accompanied by constables would
have gone on such a dangerous mission without any arm, except the service E
revolver with him. The High Court categorically concluded that the
deceased and his companions were checking the trucks on the G.T. Road
and extracting money from the truck drivers, 'therefore the respondent
must have felt offended because it amounted to not only an unnecessary
interference in the sphere of his jurisdiction but even to an illegal act of p
extorting money from the drivers of the vehicles by them. In this situation,
when Ajaib Singh, accused, questions AS.I. Gurnam Singh regarding his
and his companions' misconduct, an altercation must have ensured be-
tween both of them which was the cause of the main occurrence. Thus, the
version of the origin of the occurrence as given out by the accused appears
to be more probable than the version of the same as put forth by the G
prosecution. It has been even so held by the trial court in its impugned
judgment'. The High Court reversed the finding of the trial judge that the
injuries on the person of the respondent were self inflicted as reference in
this behalf be made to the statement of Dr. Ashwani Kumar, P.W. 3. The
aforesaid injuries received by the members of the either party do not H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A appear to have been self suffered by the~. The learned trial Court has
found that the injuries of SJ. Ajaib Singh could be self suffered as deposed
to by the doctor. ·But this finding appears to be incorrect because even with
regard to the injuries of constables Jit Ram and Chanan Singh, the doctor
has opined that those would also be self suffered. It is not understandable
B how the learned trial Court in spite of that medical evidence has held that
the injuries of Constiable Jit Ram and Chanan Singh P.Ws. could not be
self suffered. The High Court found that it appeared that Sub-Inspector
Balbir Kumar of the accused party and constables Paramjit Singh, Jit Ram
and Chanan Singh of the deceased party were armed with dandas at the
time of occurrence and they. probably us~d the same against their op-
C ponents. The High Court also placed reliance on the report of forensic
expert that shots had been fired from the revoiver of ASI Gmnam Singh.
If .did not believe the version of prosecution that in fact the revolver of
Gurnam Singh was not taken out from the holster because when the
investigating officer went at the spot he found it bolted with the belt inside
the woollen overcoat. The High Court consequently was of the opinion that
.D the act of shooting was within the scope of Clauses I and II of the exception
as contained in Section 100 of the IPC and, therefore, the respondent was
entitled to acquital.

When this appeal was heard earlier, late Sri R.K. Garg, the senior
E counsel who appeared for the respondent in absence of Sri Virender
Kumar, the iearn~d senior counsel who appeared for the appellant, placed
the entire record and urged that no previous enemity between the respon-
dent and the deceased was found even by the trial judge and it was a ~e
of mistaken identity for which it was the deceased himself who was respon-
F sible. The learned counsel had urged that even the trial Judge had found
that the respondent had the right of private defence. But the conviction
Was founded as the deceased and his companions had used dandas whereas
the respondent had used firearms. He argued that the delay in criminal
cases should not be lost sight of. According to him, at this distance of time
it was just and expedient to compensate the deceased family monetarily
G instead of entering into whether the respondent was liable to be convicted.
He even offered a sum of Rs. 5 lakh not as a cover or an excuse but as a
genuine feeling of remorse for what happened under mistaken belief. ~ut
when the appeals were listed on the next date Sri Vire~der Kumar ap-
peared and stated that his cli~nts refused to be compensated in terms of
H money. He uriied that he would like to argue and convince that it was case
I
y

STATE OF PB. v. A SINGH [SAHAI, J.) 503
__...._ of c~ld blooded murder. We accepted his request and the appea~ were A
fixed for hearing afresh.

Sri Virendra Kumar, the learned senior counsel, vehemently argued
that the High Court has acted perversely as once it found that the revolver
of the deceased was in his holster, the entire defence version fell to the
ground. Learned counsel urged that even if it is assumed as held by the B
High Court that the respondent and the accused had grappled in which ·
;.
dandas were used which caused injuries to the respondent, it did not give
him the right of private defence to shoot ASI Gurnam Singh and constable
Paramjit Singh. The learned counsel urged that the report of the forensic
expert could not be relied on as the mere fact that shots were fired from c
it, could not establish that it was used at the time of the incident. According
to learned counsel, once the incident was admitted th~ burden was on the
respondent to establish that he act, in exercise of right of private defence.
He vehemently urged that in a case where it was found that the deceased
~ ..._ party had not used any fire arm the respondent was not justified in
shooting and killing two persons. It was argued that it was a cold blooded D
murder as was apparent from the nature of injuries. He urged that the shot
in the forehead and that also through and through indicated that the firing
was done from a close range when the deceased had been rendered
helpless. On the other hand, Sri U .R. Lalit, the learned senior counsel for
the accused, placed reliance on the fuidings recorded by the trial judge and
the High Court and urged that once the• prosecuµon version was dis- E
believed, the respondent could not be convicted on the piea taken by him
in defence. It was submitted that in any case it cannot be said that in the
) --j( facts and circ~stances of the C1'Se the finding recorded by the High Court
was perverse or palpably erroneous. He urged that the incident was of
1976. The appellant was acquitted by the High Colirt in 1980. In conse-
F
quence of it he has been reinstated and is working as Deputy Superinten-
dent of Police. He, therefore, pleaded for maintaining the order of the
High Court.

Prior to adjudicating on the rival submissions, it appears necessary
~
to preface it with few observations general in nature but vital according to G
us. Although crime never dies nor there should be any sympathy for the
criminal, yet human factors play an importaµt role and reflect advertently
or inadvertently in the decision making process. In this appeal there is a
time lag of more than eighteen years from the date of incident and nearly
fifteen years from the date of acquittal and its hearing. By any standard it H
\
y

504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A is shotking. And this has be~n aggravated by still more shocking behaviour
of the Government which shall be adverted later. Speedy trial, early hearing ..+-.
and quick disposal are sine qua 11011 of criminal jurisprudence. In some
countries like England days are fixed statutorily for trial of cases. Keeping
an accused in custudy for a day more than it is necessary, is constitutionally
B impermissible and violative of human dignity, freedom of life and liberty.
The overcrowded court dockets, the phenomenal rise of public interest
litigation, duty to ensure enforcement of fundamental rights undoubtedly
keeps this court under stress and strain. But that cannot be an excuse for
keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite
period of time. It does not do any credit rather makes one sad. If the
C accused is not granted bail and serves out the sentence then the appeal is
rendered academic for all practical purposes. And the right to establish
innocence fades away in lack of enthusiasm and interest. if he is granted
bail then long delay may give rise to humane considerations. Time heals
the gravest scar and mitigates deepest injury suffered physically, mentally
D and emotionally. Therefore, if the courts have been rendered helpless and
the e~sperating delay is threatening to eat away the system then the
Governemnt may consider either to increase the strength to clear the
backlog or devise some mechanism by which criminal appeals pending for
more than reasonable time in higher courts. should stand disposed of.

E That the incident was shocking admits of no doubt. May be sitting as
the appellate court the task was not easy. But where the High Court has
set aside the coviction under Section 302 IPC after delving in depth and
discussing evidence in detai~ shoUld this Court interfere, merely, because
there could have been other view? We agree that this Court is not
p precluded or the Court hearing appeal against acquittal is not prevented
from examining and reappreciating the evidence on record. But the duty
of a court hearing appeal against acquittal in the first instance is to satisfy
itself if the view taken by acquitting court exercising appellate jurisdiction
was possible view or not. And if the court comes to conclusion that it was
not, it can on reappreciation of evidence reverse the order. What had
G persuaded us to re-hear the appeal was that the revolver of the deceased
was in the holster beneath the overcoat. At the first flush, it appeared to
be a clinching circumstance. But even after accepting this and ignoring the
opinion of forensic expert, the _finding of the High Court is neither
rendered perverse nor infirm nor palpably erroneous. It having been found
H by both the High Court and the Trial Judge that the defence version that
STATE OF PB. v. A SINGH [SAH'.AI, J.) 505

the respondent received the information from a tru~k passing from that A
direction that some persons in the police uniform were forcibly collecting
money from the truck drivers whereupon the respondent reached there,
chellenged the deceased who did not disclose his identity rather tried to
move towards the car giving an impression that he was about to run away
whereupon the respondent rushed towards him, grappled with him and was B
injured with danda blows used by three companions of the ASI, it is very
difficult to' say, as held by the High Court, that he had not developed a

- reasonable apprehension that if fire arm was not used he was himself likely
to be killed. The respondent had nine injuries. They have been found not
to be self-inflicted. He was attacked by the deceased and his companions.
The Trial Judge found that there was no previous enmity. The submission C
that the respondent was not entitled to use firearm as he was attacked by
dandas only cannot be accepted. That is not what is provided for by clauses
(I) and (II) of Section 100 of the IPC. It shall depend on facts of each case
whether the assault was such as could cause reasonable apprehension that
death would otherwise be the consequence of such assault. If the High D
Court found that the respondent was assaulted by three persons with
dandas, and hence the accused developed a reasonable apprehension that
if he did not use the firearm then death would be the consequence, it
cannot be said that the High Court was guilty of taking palpably erroneous
view. In any case, the prosecution could succeed on the strength of its own
case and that, as observed earlier, has not been found to be authentic even E
by the trial judge. The conviction being solely based on failure to establish
that the respondent had not exceeded his right of self-defence, it would
not be an exercise of sound discretion to interfere with the order passed
by the High Court.
F
Before closing this case, we shall be failing in our duty if we do not
record our serious disapproval of the manner in which the Government not
only reinstated but promoted the officer when the appeal by it against his
acquittal was pending in this Court. In our opinion the Government would
have been well advised to adopt the sealed cover, procedure, a firmly
established and well known practice in service law. Murder by a police G
officer is provocative. The trial of the officer and conduct of the Govern-
ment both are in public glare. It is not the competency or efficiency of the
officer but his conduct and behaviour and approach of the Government
towards such officer which is measured in social scales. Such unwarranted
actions of the Government shakes the confidence of common man in the H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

· A system. He l<?ses faith in it when a person who is standing trial in appeal
is promoted. _..__

For the reasons stated above this appeal fails and is dismissed. The
respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within a period of one month
from today with the Registrar of the High Court as was offered on his
B behalf earlier. Out of this amount; Rs. 3,50,000 will be paid to.the depend-
ents of ASI Gurnam Singh and Rs. 1,50,000 to the dependents of constable
Paramjit Singh. )IC

0.R. Appeal dismissed.