SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Sanjay Karol, JJ.
No.15138812Y L/Nk Gursewak Singh – Appellant
versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1791 OF 2023
Decided On : 27-07-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 69 of Army Act, 1950 – Murder of fellow serviceman – Life sentence and dismissal from Army – There was heated exchange of words between appellant and deceased on the issue of seniority – Appellant did not have a weapon at that time and he used weapon of deceased – He fired only one bullet – After incident, appellant did not run away – There was no premeditation on part of appellant – Both appellant and deceased had consumed liquor – There is every possibility that dispute over seniority resulted in appellant doing the act in a heat of passion – There was no premeditation – Appellant cannot be said to have acted in such a cruel manner which will deprive him of benefit of exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC – Exception 4 to Section 300 was applicable in this case – Appellant is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conduct of appellant will be a mitigating factor for determining sentence – Appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of over 9 years – Conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC altered to one under Part 1 of Section 304 of IPC and sentence reduced to period already undergone. (Paras 10, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Appellant who was at the relevant time Lance Naik in Indian Army was convicted by Court Martial for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950. Court Martial sentenced the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life. Court Martial also dismissed appellant from service. By impugned judgment, Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh dismissed the Petition and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
Findings of Court:
Conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is altered to the one under Part 1 of Section 304 of IPC. Appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the term which he has already undergone. Appellant was enlarged on bail by this Court on 8th April 2020. Bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The appellant who was at the relevant time Lance Naik in the Indian Army was convicted by the Court Martial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC (for short, ‘IPC’) read with Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 (for short, ‘the Army Act’). The Court Martial sentenced the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life. The Court Martial also dismissed the appellant from service. Thereafter, the appellant filed pre-confirmation and additional pre-confirmation petitions which were rejected by the Major General Officer Commanding by his order dated 28th September 2005. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition to the Chief of the Army Staff who rejected the same by his order dated 12th June 2006. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court transferred the matter to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh. By the impugned judgment, the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh dismissed the Petition and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Against the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Appellant again filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and by order dated 10.10.2018, the High Court while dismissing the Writ Petition granted liberty to the appellant to avail remedy under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
2. On 4th December 2004, the appellant and deceased (Lance Naik Kala Singh) were posted for duty with the 13 Field Regiment at Ferozepur Cantonment. On the date of the incident, the appellant and the deceased were a part of the guard headed by Guard Commander Naik Amrik Singh (PW13). Gunner Gurtej Singh (PW14) was a sentry who was also a part of the guard.
3. It is alleged that on the night of 4th December 2004, the deceased brought a bottle of country liquor. The appellant, the deceased and the Guard Commander Naik Amrik Singh consumed liquor. Thereafter, there was an altercation between the appellant and the deceased on the issue of interse seniority. At that time, the Guard commander intervened. The deceased replaced gunner Gurtej Singh (PW14) for guard duty outside the guard room. Thereafter, the appellant went out when there were heated arguments between the appellant and the deceased again on the issue of seniority. At that time, the appellant snatched the rifle from the hands of the deceased and fired one bullet at the deceased. The appellant accompanied others for taking the deceased to a hospital where he was declared dead. The appellant was arrested on the same day.
SUBMISSIONS
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the notes of evidence and findings recorded by the Court Martial as well as by the Armed Forces Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). His basic contention is that the case will be governed by exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. He submitted that the incident was an outcome of a sudden fight and the appellant acted in a heat of passion. He submitted that only one bullet was fired by the appellant though there were more bullets in the rifle at that time. His submission is that the appellant has not taken any undue advantage and has not acted in a cruel manner. The learned counsel has taken us through the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses and in particular the evidence of PW-13 Naik Amrik Singh and PW14 Gunner Gurtej Singh. He would, therefore, submit that this was a case of an offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC. He pointed out that the appellant had undergone incarceration for a period of about 9 years and 3 months.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that exception 4 to Section 300 will not apply in this case, as it cannot be said that there was a sudden fight. He submitted that the appellant has acted in a
Murder – Conduct of accused will be a mitigating factor for determining sentence.
Murder – Once Court believes testimony of eye-witnesses, failure to recover gun used by appellant, is not at all significant.
The appellate court modified the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC, recognizing the absence of premeditation and intention to kill during a sudden altercation influenced by the accused's....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and murder, and the application of Section 300 and Section 304 of the IPC in determining the intention of....
An act resulting in death committed during a sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation or the taking of undue advantage qualifies as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punisha....
The court altered the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part-II, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident as a sudden figh....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.