The absence of immediate provocation disqualifies a defense under Section 300 exceptions; premeditated actions establish guilt under Section 302 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

Since this matter is heard by this Bench earlier finally and kept for orders today, the same is disposed of by the following judgment.

1. The petitioner – original sole accused has preferred this petition, in the form of criminal appeal, for quashment of the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Presiding Officer in a proceeding of the General Security Force Court under the BSF Act, 1968, whereby the petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 15.01.2007.

2. The charge framed by the concerned Court is that the petitioner, at BOP Lakhpat, at about 23:30 hours on 6th October, 2005, by firing shots from his SLR Butt No.314, Body No.DA 5110 at No.86076343 HC Mange Ram of the same unit, caused his death, thereby committed murder. Therefore, a complaint is lodged by the complainant with regard to the said incident before the Chowk Bazar Police Station, Surat, which was registered as C.R.-I No. 142 of 2000 for the offences under Sections 302 , 307, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 337 and 427 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT .

3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, collected relevant evidence and drawn various Panchnamas and other relevant evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found material against the petitioner, charge came to be framed against him, by the Commandant 48 BN BSF vide order dated 03.06.2006. Accordingly, it is ordered by the Inspector General, FTR HQ BSF, Gujarat that the case is to be tried by a General Security Force Court on 13.06.2006.

4. Upon committal of a case to the General Security Force Court, further proceedings have been initiated, wherein, the petitioner - accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and also produced 22 various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, more particularly described in the impugned order.

6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the petitioner - accused so as to obtain his explanation/answer. In the further statement, the petitioner - accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed against him. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner - accused of the offence noted above, as the prosecution succeeded to prove the case.

7. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which is also rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.01.2007.

8. Hence, this petition for quashment of the impugned order dated 07.07.2006 passed by the learned Gujarat Security Force Court.

9.1 Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for the petitioner has submitted that twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution and all the witnesses have specifically admitted in their cross-examination that none of them have seen that firing was made by the petitioner on the deceased. On the contrary, all the witnesses have admitted in cross-examination that the relation between the deceased and the petitioner was good and fair and there was no occasion and justification for the petitioner to kill him. He has further submitted that it was not proved that SLR Butt No.314 was sent for Forensic Examination, but it was also not proved that dead body was sent for the postmortem. He has also submitted that inquest panchnama, recovery panchnama, spot panchnama, FIR, P