Penal Code 186-Section 100 First and Secondly-Exercise of right of private defence resulting in death-Two policemen killed in altercation between police officers on authority to check trucks-Whether accused entitled  to use of firearm where he was attacked by dandas-Held, whether assault such as to cause reasonable apprehension that death would otherwise be the consequence depends on facts of each case-In the facts of the case, held, interference with acquittal by High Court not warranted-Dependants of deceased to be compensated from Rs. 5 lakhs which accused had offered out of remorse- S. 302-Criminal appeal-Compensation.

Criminal Jurisprudence-Speedy trial, early hearing and quick disposal 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 officer during pendency of appeal on charge of murder deprecated-Sealed cover procedure, held, should have been adopted-Service law.

Criminal Trial-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 infirm nor palpably erroneous-Acquittal upheld-Section 100, First and Secondly, IPC.

An altercation between two officers of 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 , IPC and S.27 of the Arms Act 1950. In revision, the High Court accepted his plea of private defence, and acquitted him.

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 based its conviction on the injuries found on the person of the respondent which, it held, did not justify exercise of the right of private defence. 

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 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 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 of time it was just and expedient to compensate the deceased family monetarily instead of entering into whether the respondent was liable to be convicted, counsel for the respondent offered Rs. 5 lakhs as a genuine  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 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.