Case Title:
Ex. Ct. Mahadev vs Director General, Border Security Force
Date of Order:
14/06/2022
Bench:
Justice Hima Kohli; Justice B.R. Gavai
Parties:
Appellant- Ex. CT. Mahadev
Respondent- The Director-General, BSF &Ors.
SUBJECT
The court elaborated on the scope of proof and evidence required to ascertain the validity of the plea of self-defense in a case of a BSF guard killing a person on duty.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC which come under part IV of the constitution lay out the right of private defense, and have been discussed in length in the judgment.
- Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, talks about the burden of proof being on the accuser to prove that his actions were in self-defense.
- Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC, which deals with the exceptions to murder, specifically the exception of self-defense.
OVERVIEW
- The appellant was tried and convicted by the General Security Force Court (GSFC) on 10th March 2007 for violation of Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, which is punishable as murder as seen under section 302 of the IPC.
- He was charged with shooting a ‘civilian’ from Rangotiaa village in the West Tripura district. in a rubber farm.
- The GSFC sentenced him to life imprisonment and his plea for self-defense was rejected in the same order. The High Court of Delhi upheld the ruling of GSFC in an order dated 19th March 2008.
- Seventeen witnesses were brought in and examined by the prosecution, with the primary witness being Dr. Ranjit Kumar Das (PW-10), a forensic expert. However, the appellant had not summoned a single witness and had issued an oral statement as his defense.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AGAINST APPELLANT
- Relying mainly on the findings of Dr. Ranjit Kumar Das, who has ascertained through post-mortem that the victim had died from two bullets that had pierced his body. It was explained by the doctor that the angle of bullets piercing the victim was such that it could only have been received if the shooter was on a higher elevation than the victim.
- And further aided by the testimony of SI Shanti Bhushan Bhuiya, who informed that he had found the body with both legs in a folded position. By clubbing both witnesses, it was decided by the High Court that the appellant had made the victim crouch down first and had fired at him.
- Furthermore, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondent Union of India in the high court, argued that the above findings by the GSFC were solid.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANT
- The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Lalit Kumar, argued that the actions taken by the appellant were strictly in self-defense as he was being ‘gheraoed’(confined until demands are met) by the intruders armed with weapons.
- He further pointed out that the topography of the rubber plantation was proven to be uneven. And according to CT H. Vijay Kumar (PW-1) who was on patrol duty with the appellant, informed that the appellant was positioned in an elevated area, which could have meant that the shots were fired by the appellant from a position above that of the victim leading to the facts mentioned by Dr. Ranjit Kumar and SI Shanti Bhushan Bhuiya.
- It was also submitted according to the testimony of Sapa Das (PW-2) that the victim was involved in smuggling activities since the village was close to the Bangladesh border, with the latter even being on the smuggler’s watchlist maintained by the BSF.
JUDGMENT
- The court observed that the instinct of self-defense is inherent to everyone’s DNA, which is reflected in the general exceptions to IPC.
- Section 100 and 101 of IPC lay out the situations in which the scope of self-defense is stretched to death or any bodily harm.
- The court further referred to judgments such as Rizan and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh and State of M.P. v. Ramesh, to ascertain that there is no need for the accused to prove the validity and essential nature of his actions taken in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. And that it would be sufficient if it was established that the predominant facts are in his favour.
CONCLUSION
- This judgment elaborates on the right to private defenseof an individual and the extent they need to go to prove it in front of the court.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
