Case title: Arvind Kumar v State, NCT of Delhi
Summary
The Supreme Court recently converted a Delhi Police guard’s conviction under Section 302 IPC (Murder) to Section 304A (causing death by negligence) in the case of a constable’s death due to accidental discharge. The appellant, who was in possession of a semiautomatic weapon, was merely requesting that the deceased constable discontinue using the phone when a playful altercation resulted in the tragic incident. The Supreme Court determined that the appellant did not have knowledge that the Semi-Automatic weapon pistol was not in a safe position, even if it is presumed that it was not in a safe position, and that it was likely to cause the death of the deceased.
The Supreme Court, composed of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, determined that the appellant’s failure to maintain the semi-automatic weapon in a secure location constituted gross neglect. The High Court upheld the life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Session court, which was being heard by the Supreme Court. The court found that the utmost penalty under section 304A IPC was 2 years, and the appellant had already served 8 years of imprisonment.
The appellant’s appeal before the Supreme Court was angry over the aforementioned decision, arguing that the circumstantial evidence-based case would be rendered ineffective upon the ejection of the motive. The court found that the firearm can be fired by entangling with a chain if the change lever is not in the safety position, as evidenced by the numerous expert opinions provided in this case. The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish that the appellant had either the intention to cause the deceased’s death or the intention to inflict corporal harm on the deceased that was likely to result in his death.
About the case
The Supreme Court recently converted the conviction of a Delhi Police guard under Section 302 IPC (Murder) to Section 304A (causing death by negligence) in the case of a constable’s death due to accidental discharge. The appellant, who was in possession of a semiautomatic weapon, was merely requesting that the deceased constable discontinue using the phone when a playful altercation resulted in the tragic incident.
The Supreme Court determined that the appellant did not have knowledge that the Semi-Automatic weapon pistol was not in a safe position, even if it is presumed that it was not in a safe position, and that it was likely to cause the death of the deceased. None of the constituents of culpable homicide were omitted, according to the Court. However, it determined that the appellant’s failure to maintain the semi-automatic weapon in a secure location constituted gross neglect. The appeal from the High Court, which had upheld the life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Session court, was being heard by the Supreme Court, which is composed of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal.
“It is impossible to attribute knowledge to him that his failure to maintain the safety position of the SAF was likely to result in the death of the deceased.” “It is impossible to conceive that this is a case of culpable homicide as defined under Section 299 of IPC, as the prosecution failed to establish the existence of any of the three ingredients.” the Court observed.
The court determined that the appellant’s detention was no longer necessary due to the fact that the utmost penalty under section 304A IPC was 2 years, and the appellant had already served 8 years of imprisonment. While conversing on the telephone in the reporting room of the police station, the deceased Constable was experiencing an ordinary day. Duty Officer Shashi Bala was apprehensive that they might overlook essential calls at the police station due to his presence on the line. She requested that one of the officers guarantee that he terminated the phone call. A semiautomatic weapon was held by the guard, who touched the constable’s shoulders before humorously pushing him away. The weapon was accidentally discharged during the altercation, resulting in the constable’s death. Under section 302, the guard was charged with homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The guard’s playful interaction with the constable quickly transformed into a disaster, resulting in over eight years of imprisonment. This occurred solely as a result of the guard’s request to put down the phone. The “thirdly” clause of section 300 IPC would apply to the case of the present appellant, according to the Sessions Court judge. It was determined that the appellant was unable to present his case within the exception 4 to section 300 IPC. Thus, the court imposed a life sentence upon him. The conviction was upheld by the High Court on appeal. The High Court had rejected the existence of motive on the basis of the evidence presented by PW-3, 18, and 22. The court drew upon the testimony of PW-13, who was present during the firing of SAF and heard the deceased’s lament, “mujhe bachao.” Upon observing the deceased, he heard the appellant say, “Madam, how did you die? The Indian Evidence Act 1872’s Section 6 covered the doctrine of res gestae, which was implemented by the Court. The accused, who is referred to as the Appellant in this case, lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court, angry over the aforementioned decision.
The appellant argued that the circumstantial evidence-based case would be rendered ineffective upon the ejection of the motive. He maintained that the death was entirely accidental and therefore protected by section 80 of the IPC. At the most, an offense under section 304 IPC may be established.The respondent contested that the appellant was aware that the use of a carbine could result in mortality by citing ocular evidence and ballistic experts.
The prosecution’s case of intentional discharge is rendered unacceptable due to the absence of evidence regarding motive. The Court did not address the issue of motive, as the impugned judgment of the HC determined that the appellant did not possess any motive. The HC reached this conclusion after considering the testimony of PW3 Nazir Ahmed, PW18 SubInspector Ram Singh, and PW22 Shaukat Ali, the deceased’s father.
The appellant’s defense of accidental discharge is substantiated by eyewitnesses. The Court noted that “the version of PW12 and PW25, who were claiming to be the eyewitnesses, completely supports the defense of the appellant of accidental firing. In any case, they have not deposed that the appellant intentionally fired bullets at the deceased.” The HC disregarded the testimony of the deceased’s father, as it was provided after a few months. This was acknowledged by the court. The firearm may be fired by becoming entangled with a chain: Expert in ballistics The court determined that the firearm can be fired by entangling with a chain if the change lever is not in the safety position, as evidenced by the numerous expert opinions that were provided in this case. The appellant must be held accountable for failing to adhere to the fundamental precaution of maintaining the change lever in the safety position.
Statement of the appellant as res gestae pursuant to section 6 of the Evidence Act. The Court noted that the statements were undoubtedly associated with the disputed fact, which was the appellant’s purported slaying of the deceased. Consequently, the appellant’s actions in uttering the aforementioned statement become pertinent in light of Section 6, assuming that the statements attributed to the appellant and PW12 were indeed made.
Nevertheless, in this instance, the appellant complied with Shashi Bala’s directive to remove the decedent from the phone. An unintentional fire occurred in this seminar. In this context, the appellant’s response, “Madam, how would you like to be treated? Those terms have been used to assign responsibility to the PW12. The court expressed its opinion that “the interpretation of the aforementioned statements as made by us becomes a possible interpretation that is consistent with normal human conduct…if the theory of accidental firing is accepted.”
The court observed that PW13 reported that PW6, PW17, and specific other individuals were present when he heard the appellant make the aforementioned statements. Nevertheless, the prosecution was not endorsed by either PW6 or PW17. The prosecution did not investigate the other individuals who were present, as per PW13. Consequently, the court determined that the prosecution’s account of the appellant and PW-12 making such statements did not elicit confidence.
The court ultimately determined that the prosecution had failed to establish that the appellant had either the intention to cause the deceased’s death or the intention to inflict corporal harm on the deceased that was likely to result in his death. The appellant’s conviction for murder under section 302 IPC was vacated by the Supreme Court, which found him guilty under section 304-A. The appellant has already served eight years in prison, and the maximum penalty under this provision is two years. As a result, the appellant was granted his freedom.
