THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT GUWAHATI (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, JJ
Tupe Subhash, Son Of Namdev - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
WP(Crl.) No. 4/2019
Decided On : 14-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Section 304 - Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Trial by General Security Force Court - Writ petition filed to quash conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murder - Petitioner argued that he acted under grave and sudden provocation - Court found that while provocation existed, it did not justify murder, reducing conviction to Section 304 with a sentence of 10 years. (Paras 63 , 62 )
(B) Criminal Procedure - Fair trial - Petitioner claimed trial was not conducted by proper forum - Court held that the trial was valid under the BSF Act and Rules, affirming the jurisdiction of GSFC. (Paras 36 , 37 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a BSF constable, shot two fellow constables after being provoked by insults regarding his personal life. He was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. (Paras 1 , 6 , 63 )
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged provocation but ruled it insufficient for a murder conviction, reducing the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC. (Paras 62 , 63 )
Issues: Whether the petitioner acted under grave and sudden provocation and whether the trial was conducted properly. (Paras 8 , 36 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that while provocation existed, it was not sufficient to negate the intent to commit murder, thus applying Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC to reduce the conviction. (Paras 62 , 63 )
Result: Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC upheld with a 10-year sentence.
JUDGMENT :
Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.
Petitioner’s case:
1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of like nature, to set aside and quash the impugned order of sentence dated 03.10.2013, passed by the General Security Forces Court (GSFC, for short), in connection with the “Trial of No. 900039263CT Tupe Subhash of 111 Battalion, BSF”, convicting the petitioner under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and also the order dated 15.09.2024, passed by the respondent No. 3, confirming the findings of GSFC and other orders passed to the detriment of the petitioner.
2. Tupe Subhash (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has arrayed the Union of India, the Director General, Border Security Force-New Delhi, the Special Director General of Border Security Force-Kolkata, the Inspector General, Border Security Force- Silchar, Cachar and the Commandant of 111 Battalion, Border Security Force, Satakha, Nagaland, as respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Through the impugned order, the petitioner was also dismissed from his services as a Constable of the Border Security Force (BSF, for short). The petitioner had joined the BSF on 15.11.1990 as a constable and during his tenure of service, the petitioner was posted at Nagaland and attached to 111 Battalion (Bn, for short) BSF at Nagaland. As soon as he joined the new Battalion at Nagaland, the petitioner requested for voluntary retirement from the forces and he was interviewed by the concerned Board on 03.08.2012 and his prayer for voluntary retirement was allowed w.e.f. 31.12.2012, as the date of retirement from the force.
3. At Satakha, Nagaland, the petitioner was sharing his barrack with one Sagir Alam (hereinafter also referred to as the deceased). The petitioner got acquainted with the deceased Sagir Alam from 11.06.2012 and he had a friendly and cordial relation with the deceased Sagir Alam and in fact, he gifted a pair of running shoes to Sagir Alam, just after completion of their training. When the deceased learnt that the petitioner was addicted to alcohol and used to wet his bed and snore while sleeping, Sagir Alam started calling names ridiculing the petitioner. Sagir Alam also used to taunt that the petitioner had contacted HIV AIDS to the annoyance of the petitioner and when the petitioner used to detest such sarcasm, Sagir Alam used to ignore the petitioner. When the petitioner used to express his disapproval Sagir Alam used to ignore him. On 14.08.2012, at 1600 hours, when the petitioner was standing outside his barrack Sagir Alam suddenly started abusing the petitioner, uttering obscene words and accused him of suffering from HIV AIDS. Annoyed by his behaviour, the petitioner immediately called his wife and informed her that he is being harassed by Sagir Alam and this may lead to disaster. The petitioner also informed another constable of the same battalion, namely, Jitendra Patil (PW-10) that he was being harassed by Sagir Alam. These facts were brought on record by way of evidence, but the evidence was ignored by the GSFC.
4. Thereafter, on the same day, i.e., on 14.08.2012, as the petitioner was detailed as Guard Commander at Tentage Stores at BN HQ for night duty, the petitioner at around 1730 hours, went to the Quarter Guard to collect his weapon for night duty and he was issued an Insas Rifle with Butt No. 81. After collecting his weapon, the petitioner went to the Magazine to collect the ammunition and collected 40 rounds of 5.56 mm Insas bullets. The petitioner loaded his weapon with 20 (twenty) 5.56mm bullets and kept the remaining in his pouch for emergency. Meanwhile, the petitioner realized that he forgot his umbrella and the magazine and went back to bring the same. At that moment, wh
The court reduced the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC due to provocation.
The conviction for murder was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of evidence and violation of natural justice principles during the appellate process.
The absence of immediate provocation disqualifies a defense under Section 300 exceptions; premeditated actions establish guilt under Section 302 IPC.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that provocation must be both grave and sudden to mitigate murder charges, emphasizing proper evaluation of evidence and limited scope for judicial review.
The court upheld the dismissal of a constable for accidental firing, affirming that the trial was fair and charges were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Summary Security Force Court proceedings were flawed due to significant delay and lack of adherence to natural justice, rendering the dismissal of the petitioner unlawful.
Judicial review under Article 226 extends to the examination of the decision-making process in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring the findings are rational and supported by credible evidence.
Culpable homicide can be reduced from murder to a lesser charge if the act was committed under grave and sudden provocation, as outlined in Section 300 IPC.
The main legal point established is that the appellant's actions did not qualify as a sudden provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, as the deceased did not provoke the appellant and the ap....
Right of private defence can be exercised when there is a reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt would be caused to that person or his companion.
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.