In a recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the appeal regarding the murder conviction upheld for offences under IPC Sections 302/307 was dismissed. The case involved a brazen murder inside a Police Station in Delhi, with the motive linked to an illicit relationship. Witness testimonies and evidences presented a clear picture of the events leading to the deceased’s death. The court upheld the conviction based on the evidence and legal procedures followed in the trial.
Facts
- The appellant challenged the order of the High Court upholding his conviction for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
- The appellant was apprehended with his carbine by the police after injuring PW-2, who later filed the FIR.
- Charges were framed under Sections 302/307 of IPC against the appellant.
- Witnesses testified to seeing the appellant firing at the deceased inside the police station.
- The deceased allegedly had an illicit relationship with the appellant’s wife, leading to the murder.
- An FIR was lodged at Police Station Mayur Vihar under Sections 302/307 IPC based on PW-2’s account.
- The incident involved a brazen murder inside a Police Station in Delhi.
- Multiple witnesses, including PW-2, saw the appellant talking to the deceased before the murder took place.
- The appellant, a police guard at Mayur Vihar Police Station, was on duty when he executed the murder.
- The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.
- The appellant was sentenced based on the aforementioned sections.
- The details of the conviction and sentencing were stated earlier in the judgment.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgement: Settlement Agreement between Parties in a Cheque Dishonour Case
Analysis
- The prosecution’s case is primarily based on the statement of eye witnesses present in the Police Station, particularly PW-2 who is a lady head constable and the complainant.
- The presence of PW-2 at the Police Station is established by multiple witnesses.
- The appellant’s plea of self-defense and grave and sudden provocation is refuted with strong evidence and lack of supporting evidence.
- The motive for the appellant’s actions is linked to the deceased’s illicit relationship with the appellant’s wife.
- Eye witness accounts of PW-1, PW-11, PW-17, and others paint a clear picture of the events leading to the deceased’s death.
- The weapon used, the number and location of gunshots on the deceased’s body indicate a deliberate act of murder.
- Delay in cross-examination is noted, but it did not impact the trial significantly.
- The defense’s attempt to present the deceased as the aggressor is debunked due to lack of evidence.
- The appellant’s actions and the circumstances surrounding the incident strongly point towards a case of murder rather than self-defense.
- The observations point towards a fair trial process and adherence to legal procedures in presenting evidence.
- No abstract standard of reasonableness can be laid down.
- Provocation must be such that would temporarily deprive the power of self-control of a ‘reasonable person’.
- Factors to consider in converting a murder case to culpable homicide: time gap between provocation and the act, weapon used, number of blows, etc.
- Court determines reasonableness as a question of fact.
- Test for ‘grave and sudden’ provocation requires a reasonable and probable version to show harm was necessary for defense or to prevent further reasonable apprehension.
- Burden of proof on the accused to prove self-defense under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- Indian law test for ‘grave and sudden’ provocation: whether a reasonable person in the accused’s situation would lose self-control, words and gestures can also provoke, mental background from victim’s previous acts.
- Provocation alone is not enough to reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide.
- The appellant’s defence revolves around the claim that the deceased’s death was accidental and caused by the appellant losing self-control due to grave and sudden provocation.
- This defence falls under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code which exempts culpable homicide from being classified as murder under certain conditions.
- The exceptions to this defence include that provocation cannot be sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing, and it cannot be given by a public servant in the lawful exercise of their powers.
- The appellant asserts that the act leading to the death falls under Exception 1 as it was a result of the appellant being deprived of self-control due to provocation.
- It is emphasized that provocation cannot be given by anything done in obedience to the law or in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
- The facts do not fall under any Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC
- The case does not qualify for any other Exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC
- There is no justification for interference with the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court
- The case is not of a lesser magnitude or culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Also Read: The Vishwanath Case: A Landmark Judgement by the Supreme Court of India
Decision
- The appeal is dismissed.
- Copy of the Judgment will be sent to the Trial Court for the appellant to surrender and complete the remaining part of his sentence.
- The interim bail granted earlier is now vacated.
- The appellant must surrender before the trial court within four weeks from today.
Also Read: Judgment in the Case of Nationality Status: Appellant vs. Tribunal
Case Title: SURENDER SINGH Vs. STATE(NCT OF DELHI) (2024 INSC 462)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000597-000597 – 2012
