Supreme Court Acquits Uttarakhand Doctor Under Right of Private Defence
September 11, 2025
Bench Rules Self-Defence Cannot Be Judged on a Golden Scale
Medical Practitioner Freed After Killing Armed Attacker in Clinic
By Our Legal Reporter
New Delhi: September 11, 2025: A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India on September 5, 2025, set aside the life sentence of Dr. Rakesh Dutt Sharma, a medical practitioner from Uttarakhand, and acquitted him of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court held that his actions fell squarely within the right of private defence after an armed assailant attacked him in his clinic.
The case arose from a long-running money dispute between Dr. Sharma and the deceased, identified only as the assailant. On the day of the incident, the attacker entered the doctor’s clinic armed with a pistol and immediately opened fire. Dr. Sharma suffered a gunshot wound but managed to wrest the weapon from his assailant’s hand before discharging it back, fatally wounding him.
Following the shooting, both parties lodged First Information Reports (FIRs) against each other. The FIR against the attacker was closed upon his death, and Dr. Sharma was charged under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, punishable by life imprisonment. The trial court found him guilty of culpable homicide, and the Uttarakhand High Court upheld the conviction and sentence.
Dr. Sharma appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that he had acted in self-defence when he shot his attacker in retaliation. His counsel submitted that under the facts of the case, the doctor could not be expected to apply perfect rationality or arithmetic precision when faced with a life-threatening attack. Instead, he urged the court to view the incident through the lens of a reasonable person experiencing imminent danger.
A bench comprising Justices M. M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh agreed with Dr. Sharma’s arguments. The court held that private defence under Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC must be assessed from the standpoint of a reasonable person rather than a strict mathematical standard. The judges emphasized that self-preservation is a basic human instinct that the law recognises as a valid defence.
The Supreme Court drew upon its landmark 2010 decision in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, which set out ten guiding principles for the right of private defence. These principles affirm that a person facing imminent harm need only have a reasonable apprehension of danger to trigger the right of self-defence, and that he cannot be expected to modulate his response with surgical exactitude.
In its verdict, the court noted, “When an attack is sought to be made on the accused-appellant by a person who goes to the place of the accused, armed with a pistol and thereafter shoots him, there is no way the accused person would apply his rational mind in exercising his right of private defence.” The judges added that courts must avoid a pedantic approach when evaluating such cases.
The state had argued that Dr. Sharma used disproportionate force by firing multiple shots at vital parts of the assailant’s body. It relied on post-mortem and medical evidence to contend that the doctor went beyond what was necessary under private defence. The Supreme Court, however, found no clear proof of excessive force and observed that the attacker was the initial aggressor.
The bench underscored that private defence continues only as long as the danger persists, and the test is whether a reasonable person in the same situation would have believed that death or grievous injury was imminent. In Dr. Sharma’s case, both the attack and the fear of further violence ended only after he shot his assailant.
The Supreme Court further clarified that an accused need not expressly plead private defence if the facts on record support it. Courts can infer the plea from evidence, even if the defence did not formally invoke it. This principle reinforced the idea that justice should bend to the realities of sudden self-defence situations.
Setting aside the judgments of both the trial court and the High Court, the Supreme Court acquitted Dr. Sharma of all charges. The bench declared, “We have no hesitation in setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and that of the High Court,” and ordered his immediate release.
Legal experts have welcomed the decision as a reaffirmation of the law’s sensitivity to human instinct in life-and-death encounters. They note that the verdict clarifies the standard for private defence and discourages lower courts from applying overly rigid measurements in similar cases.
Civil rights advocates contend that the ruling strengthens individual liberties by confirming that citizens need not calculate force down to the last bullet when under attack. They believe the outcome will deter frivolous prosecutions of lawful self-defence, provided the response remains within reasonable limits.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rakesh Dutt Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand will now serve as binding precedent for private defence cases across India. By underlining the reasonable person test and rejecting a “golden scale” approach, the court has provided clear guidance for both litigants and judges facing disputes over self-defence.
ALSO READ POPULAR ARTICLES
Supreme Court Overturns Death Sentence in POCSO Case, Clarifies ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine
Supreme Court Refuses Plea to Cancel India-Pakistan Asia Cup 2025 Match
Delhi HC Battle Over Sunjay Kapur’s Rs 1,900 Crore Asset Transfer
Supreme Court Unveils Four-Step Test to Quash Frivolous Criminal Cases
Supreme Court Acquits Woman Heated Neighbourhood Quarrels Not Abetment to Suicide
Top 5 Landmark Judgments & Their Practical Impact (with Summaries)