Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Surender Singh – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT Of Delhi) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2012
Decided on : 03-07-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 307 – Murder and attempt to murder – Life sentence – Appellant who was posted as a police guard, executed this murder inside police station while he was on duty – Deceased had illicit relationship with wife of appellant – There are more than one witness to the fact that deceased and appellant were last seen together in conversation with each other inside police station even minutes before these witnesses saw appellant killing deceased with his official Carbine – Injured witness has remained steadfast to her version of incident – She is an extremely credible and trustworthy witness and veracity of her statement and deposition establishes guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt – Deceased was shot not only from the front but also from back while he was trying to escape – It is a clear case of murder – Motive for appellant and execution of crime at Police Station, all point towards murder committed inside police station by appellant – One fire arm injury with blackening at entry point also explains that deceased was first shot from a close range – Remaining injuries also correlate with testimony of eye witnesses – Plea of self-defence and in alternative plea of grave and sudden provocation taken by appellant do not hold any ground – Defence has not been able to establish a case of private defence by any evidence – It was appellant who had a motive to kill deceased as deceased was having illicit relationship with his wife – Facts of present case do not even remotely make out any case under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC, or under any other Exception(s) to Section 300 of IPC – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 309 and 231 – Adjournments – Long adjournment after examination-in-chief, should never be given – This may affect fairness of trial and may even endanger safety of witness – As far as possible, defence should be asked to cross-examine witness same day or following day – Only in very exceptional cases and for reasons to be recorded, cross-examination should be deferred and short adjournment can be given after taking precautions and care for the witness if it is required – Request for deferral must be premised on sufficient reasons, justifying deferral of cross-examination of witness. (Paras 11 and 13)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 105 – Burden of proof – Under Section 105 of Evidence Act, burden of proof that accused’s case falls within general exception is upon accused himself – This burden of proof though is not as onerous as burden of proof beyond all reasonable doubts which is on prosecution, nevertheless some degree of reasonable satisfaction has to be established by defence when this plea is taken. (Para 21)
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300, Exception 1 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Provocation itself is not enough to reduce crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder – In order to convert a case of murder to a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, provocation must me such that would temporarily deprive power of self-control of a “reasonable person” – What has also to be seen is time gap between this alleged provocation and act of homicide; kind of weapon used; number of blows, etc. – These are all questions of facts – There is no standard or test as to what reasonableness should be in these circumstances as this would again be a question of fact to be determined by a Court. (Para 25)
Facts of the case:
Appellant before this Court has challenged order of High Court (dated 18.05.2011) which has dismissed his appeal while upholding his conviction and sentence by Trial Court for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, for which he has been sentenced for life imprisonment and 7 years of rigorous imprisonment respectively.
Findings of Court:
Court not inclined to interfere with findings of Trial Court and the High Court. Interim order dated 02.04.2012 granting bail to the appellant, hereby, stands vacated and appellant is hereby directed to surrender before trial court within four weeks from today.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Adjournments – Long adjournments after the examination-in-chief should generally be avoided, as they can impact the fairness of the trial and may pose risks to witness safety. Whenever possible, cross-examination should be conducted on the same or following day, and adjournments should be justified with sufficient reasons and recorded accordingly (!) (!) (!) .
Burden of Proof – Under the relevant evidence law, the burden of proving that the case falls within a general exception, such as self-defense or grave and sudden provocation, lies on the accused. The accused must establish some reasonable degree of satisfaction that the exception applies, though this is not as onerous as the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt required of the prosecution (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Nature of Provocation – For provocation to reduce a charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it must be such that a reasonable person would be temporarily deprived of self-control. The time gap between the provocation and the act, the nature of the weapon used, and the number of injuries are all relevant factual considerations (!) (!) (!) .
Evidence and Credibility – Witnesses who are consistent, credible, and trustworthy, especially those who are injured and present at the scene, significantly strengthen the prosecution’s case. The testimony of eye witnesses, corroborated by forensic evidence, is crucial in establishing the facts of the incident (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Conduct of the Trial – The practice of routinely deferring cross-examination without sufficient reasons can prejudice the fairness of the trial and endanger witness safety. Courts should exercise caution and record proper reasons when adjourning cross-examinations, preferring to conduct them promptly whenever possible (!) (!) (!) .
Nature of the Crime – The case involves a brazen murder committed inside a police station, with evidence indicating that the accused continued firing even as the victim was attempting to escape. The injuries and forensic evidence support the conclusion that the deceased was shot from both front and back, indicating a deliberate intent to kill (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Defense Arguments – The defense’s claim of self-defense or grave and sudden provocation was examined critically. The evidence did not substantiate these claims, and the consistent eyewitness accounts and forensic findings pointed to a case of murder rather than accidental or defensive shooting. The burden of proof for these exceptions was on the accused, and they failed to establish their case (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Motive – The motive for the accused was established as the deceased’s illicit relationship with the accused’s wife, which provided a reason for the accused to commit the crime. The presence of this motive, combined with the evidence of the incident, reinforced the conclusion of intentional murder (!) (!) .
Final Judgment – The courts upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal. The accused was directed to surrender and serve the remaining sentence, as the evidence overwhelmingly supported a verdict of murder beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
JUDGMENT :
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. The appellant before this Court has challenged the order of the High Court (dated 18.05.2011) which has dismissed his appeal while upholding his conviction and sentence by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, for which he has been sentenced for life imprisonment and 7 years of rigorous imprisonment respectively.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the State at length.
3. As the facts of the case would reveal the present case is of a brazen murder, committed inside a Police Station in Delhi.
The prosecution case is that the appellant, who was posted as a police guard at Mayur Vihar Police Station, Delhi, executed this murder inside the police station, while he was on duty!
4. The deceased was married to the appellant’s first cousin and was also his neighbour. The prosecution case is that the deceased had an illicit relationship with the wife of the appellant. There are more than one witnesses to the fact that the deceased and the appellant were last seen together in conversation with each other inside the police station even minutes before these witnesses saw the appellant killing the deceased with his official 9 m.m. carbine.
5. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Mayur Vihar, New Delhi on 30.06.2002 at 2:30 pm, under Sections 302/307 IPC on the narration of PW-2 who was posted at the Police Station, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi as Head Constable at the relevant point of time. PW-2 states that on the date of the incident she reached the Police Station at around 11.30 am and saw the appellant talking to the deceased. She further states that at around 11.40 am, she heard sounds of fire and then saw the deceased running towards the Duty Officer’s room; he was bleeding with his hands held up in the air. The appellant was seen firing at the deceased from his Carbine. When the firing stopped, the deceased was seen lying outside the duty officer's room, bleeding profusely. The appellant was apprehended along with his carbine by the police staff, and PW-2 who was also injured in the firing was taken to the LBS Hospital where she received medical aid, and later lodged the FIR.
6. The police after its investigation filed chargesheet and the case was committed to Sessions, where charges were framed under Sections 302/307 of IPC against the present appellant. The prosecution examined as many as 27 witnesses. The accused, after giving his statement under Section 313 CrPC, had also examined a witness as DW-1. The Trial Court ultimately convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC as already stated above.
7. Strangely, and for reasons best known to the prosecution, it examined PW-6 who is the brother of the appellant and PW-25 who is wife of the appellant, as prosecution witnesses. Although these two witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that they establish that the deceased was having an extra marital affair with the appellant’s wife, yet both of them added in their testimony that it was the deceased who was determined to kill the appellant!
8. PW-25, who is the wife of the appellant, says that, minutes prior to the incident, the deceased had come to her place and had warned her that he was going to the Police Station to kill her husband! PW-6 is also a witness to this expression on the part of the deceased.
9. The accused/appellant who as we shall see, has neither denied the incident nor the fact that he killed the deceased. His argument is that he did it as a matter of self-defence, and in the alternative if self-defence is not accepted by the Court, then it was a case of grave and sudden provocation at best, which led to the death of the deceased at the hands of the appellant. In other words, if at all, the appellant can be punished only for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
It has been argued before us that on the fateful day (i.e. 30.06.2002), it was the deceased who had come to t
(1) Adjournments – Long adjournment after examination-in-chief, should never be given – This may affect fairness of trial and may even endanger safety of witness.(2) Culpable homicide not amounting t....
A prima facie case for murder requires proof that the accused intentionally inflicted injuries leading to death; provocation and self-defence defenses were insufficient as actions were premeditated.
The court established that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to prove guilt, and the appellant's actions were mitigated by grave and sudden provocation, reducing the charge from murd....
Grave provocation by the deceased towards the accused's wife leads to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception I of Section 300 IPC.
The court affirmed that the appellant's actions constituted murder under Section 302 IPC, rejecting claims of provocation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
