Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted a forest ranger after finding the prosecution failed to prove its account of the shooting and accepting that he acted in private defence of himself and his driver. The hostile-witness evidence was still examined to its legally usable extent. The separate conviction for giving false information also lacked proof.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved the shooting offence beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the ranger’s use of his gun was justified by private defence.
- Whether the conviction for giving false information could survive.
Provisions considered
- Sections 96–106, particularly Sections 96, 97, 99, 100 and 102, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court applied reasonable apprehension, necessity and proportionality to the immediate danger to the ranger and driver; private defence did not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 31–35, 38–46)
- Section 203, Indian Penal Code, 1860The prosecution failed to prove the alleged false account or planting of timber and a gun; the conviction was unsustainable. (¶ 48–49)
Held
- After examining the hostile witnesses to the permissible extent together with the remaining evidence, the Court found the prosecution had not proved how the incident occurred as alleged. Other witnesses principally proved seizure, medical and ballistic matters. (¶ 23–28)
- The defence evidence and prompt complaint established reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt from an armed group pelting stones and threatening firing. In that factual setting the ranger could use his gun to defend himself and his driver. (¶¶ 34, 37–46)
- The fact that the shot hit the deceased’s back did not by itself resolve private defence. The whole incident and danger had to be assessed; the prosecution also failed to dislodge the defence version through cross-examination. (¶ 41–46)
- The High Court had not addressed the challenged Section 203 conviction. That conviction also failed for lack of evidence, including proof of the alleged source and planting of the timber and gun. (¶ 48–49)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside and appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds discharged and appellant set free.