It is not a crime to kill someone you believe might cause you grievous injury even though he might not have actually done so, the Supreme Court has ruled. The Court upheld the acquittal of two men accused of killing a man who had attacked them with sharp weapons in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, 30 years ago.

Elaborating on Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code, the court ruled that a person can kill another when there exists a reasonable apprehension that his adversary is going to cause him grievous injury even though he might not have actually inflicted any. “In that event he can go to the extent of causing the latter’s death in the exercise of the right of private (self) defence even though the latter may not have inflicted any blow or injury on him,” the Bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and H S Bedi said.

The decision came on an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh, challenging an Allahabad High Court ruling acquitting Gajey Singh and Rajpal Singh in a case of murder dating January 27, 1979. The victim, Lakhi Ram, with whom Gajey and Rajpal had personal enmity, had gone to the defendants’ home accompanied by several others, and assaulted them with sharp weapons. In retaliation, Rajpal at Gajey fired a shot that resulted in Lakhi Ram’s death. The sessions court sentenced Rajpal and Gajey to life in prison for murder. The verdict was reversed in the Allahabad High Court.

“(The) accused persons could have a reasonable apprehension of death or at least of grievous hurt. It was a case of single gun shot which was not repeated. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused persons had exceeded their right of private defence in any manner,” the Bench observed.