Haridwar Clinic Ambush: Doctor Shoots Attacker, Supreme Court Clears Him on Private Defence Grounds

New Delhi, September 10 2025 - The Supreme Court of India has acquitted Dr. Rakesh Dutt Sharma, overturning his life sentence for culpable homicide. The Court ruled that Dr. Sharma lawfully exercised his right of private defence when he fatally shot the attacker, Karan Singh, in his clinic in Haridwar on 25 June 1993.

Details of the Incident

On 25 June 1993 at approximately 12:15 pm, Karan Singh, an employee of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) entered Dr. Rakesh Dutt Sharma’s clinic in Haridwar during lunch hours. A financial dispute existed between them. Karan Singh was armed with a pistol and shot at Dr. Sharma, injuring him in the head. In response, Dr. Sharma initially hit him with blunt weapon and then seized the pistol from Karan Singh and fired back, resulting in Karan Singh's death within the clinic premises.

Both parties filed First Information Reports (FIRs). The FIR by Karan Singh’s family (brother Virendra Kumar Tomar) was registered late in the evening, while Dr. Sharma’s FIR was registered at 2:20 pm the same day.

Legal Proceedings

Initially, Dr. Sharma was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder. The trial court convicted him under Section 304 Part I IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine. The High Court later upheld this verdict.

Dr. Sharma appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that his actions fell under the right of private defence.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment on 5 September 2025. The Court emphasised that Karan Singh was the aggressor, having attacked Dr. Sharma in his clinic with a pistol. The Court reaffirmed that in sudden, life-threatening circumstances, a realistic and pragmatic assessment, rather than a pedantic, microscopic standard is required when evaluating acts of self-defence.

The Court cited precedents such as Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and other judgments to support that private defence cannot be measured with arithmetical precision and that a person's natural reaction in the heat of danger must be assessed from the standpoint of a reasonable person under immediate threat

Applying these principles to Dr. Sharma’s situation, the Court concluded that his response was proportionate and arose from the instinct of self-preservation. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the convictions from both lower courts and acquitted him of all charges. His bail bond was discharged, and any pending applications were disposed of.

(Rh/Eth/TL)