To establish an offence under Section 307 IPC, intention or knowledge to cause death must be demonstrated, which can be inferred from the circumstances, including the use of a firearm.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. Heard Shri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Under challenge in this criminal appeal preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh is the judgment and order dated 14.07.2014 of the High Court whereby it has reversed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court and had acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence under Section 307 of the India Penal Code,¹[In short ‘IPC’] read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 but has convicted him for commission of offence under Section 326 IPC. The consequential order dated 28.07.2014, imposing punishment of the term already undergone by the accused-respondent, is also under challenge.

3. The accused-respondent is the sole accused who was found guilty for an offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. He was sentenced to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 with fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment of one year. He was also punished for an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 with rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. On an appeal preferred by the accused-respondent, the aforesaid conviction has been set aside and he has been acquitted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 but has been convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced with imprisonment already undergone.

5. The High Court in acquitting the accused-respondent held that for an offence under Section 307 IPC, the court was obliged to see if the act was done with the intention or knowledge so as to cause death and since the facts do not prove such intention or knowledge on part of the accused-respondent, there cannot be an offence for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. It also observed that the intention has to be gathered from the entire circumstances of the case such as nature of the weapon used, the manner in which it was used, severity of the blow or hurt, the part of the body where the injury was inflicted and so on and not merely from the end result.

6. On the date of the incident i.e. 05.11.2010 which happened to be a day of Diwali festival, the accused-respondent was posted as Guard at Company Headquarter 2nd Indian Reserve Battalion in District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. It appears that he was not satisfied with the quality of food served at the mess and, therefore, he had raised an objection regarding it, whereupon his colleagues advised him to wait for some time since the incharge of the mess was out of station. However, the accused-respondent was in an aggressive mood and decided to settle scores with regard to the quality of food then and there. He finished his duties at about 9 p.m. and opened fire with his AK-47 rifle upon other constables. In the incident, Sanjeet Kumar (PW-2), Head Constable, suffered injuries in both his upper thighs. In that connection FIR No. 107 dated 06.11.2010 was lodged by him before the Police Station, Tissa, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. The injured Head Constable who had suffered bullet injuries was admitted in the hospital for treatment and remained there till 08.12.2010.

7. Upon completion of the investigation, a final report was submitted charging the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. During the trial, prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses to prove the charges against the accused-respondent. The statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure,²[In short ‘CrPC’] was also recorded wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated.

8. Admittedly, the accused-respondent on 05.11.2010 had performed his duty as a guard at the Co