Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Army Personnel Fight Case: Gursewak Singh vs. Union of India (2023) INSC 648 (27 July 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 27 July 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 648
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Sanjay Karol, J.
Can a fight between army personnel over seniority lead to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, examining the circumstances of a fatal shooting during an altercation between two soldiers. The court considered whether the actions of the accused fell under the exception of ‘sudden fight’ in the definition of murder. The bench consisted of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, with Justice Abhay S. Oka authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves an appeal by Lance Naik Gursewak Singh, who was convicted by a Court Martial for the murder of Lance Naik Kala Singh. The incident occurred on December 4, 2004, at Ferozepur Cantonment where both were posted. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and dismissal from service. The appellant’s pre-confirmation petitions were rejected by the Major General Officer Commanding on September 28, 2005. A subsequent petition to the Chief of the Army Staff was also rejected on June 12, 2006. The appellant then filed a petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was later transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh. The Tribunal upheld the conviction and sentence. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appellant’s writ petition on October 10, 2018, granting him liberty to avail remedy under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

On the night of the incident, the appellant, the deceased, and the Guard Commander, Naik Amrik Singh, consumed liquor. An argument broke out between the appellant and the deceased regarding their seniority. The appellant then allegedly snatched the rifle from the deceased and fired a single shot, which resulted in the deceased’s death. The appellant was arrested on the same day.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant was initially convicted by the Court Martial. His pre-confirmation and additional pre-confirmation petitions were rejected by the Major General Officer Commanding. The Chief of the Army Staff also rejected his petition. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana initially heard the case but transferred it to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh. The Armed Forces Tribunal upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the writ petition and granted liberty to the appellant to avail remedy under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder, and its exception 4 under Section 300 of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Section 300 of the IPC states:

“Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—Secondly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—Thirdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—Fourthly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”

Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC states:

“Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

The Court also considered Section 304 of the IPC, which defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part I of Section 304 of the IPC states that a person can be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, if the act was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, as the incident was a result of a sudden fight in the heat of passion.
• It was submitted that only one bullet was fired, even though there were more bullets in the rifle, indicating no intention to cause excessive harm.
• The appellant’s counsel contended that the appellant did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner, thus qualifying for the exception.
• The counsel relied on the testimonies of PW-13 Naik Amrik Singh and PW-14 Gunner Gurtej Singh to support the claim of a sudden fight.
• The appellant’s counsel argued that the offense should be categorized under Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and highlighted that the appellant had already served over 9 years in prison.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent’s counsel argued that Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC does not apply, as the incident was not a sudden fight.
• It was contended that the appellant acted in a cruel manner, which disqualifies him from the exception.
• The respondent emphasized that the appellant’s conduct should be viewed in light of his duty as a guard and member of a disciplined force.
• The respondent argued against showing any leniency to the appellant.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in the sense that it sought to apply the exception of sudden fight to a situation involving a member of a disciplined force, where a higher standard of conduct is generally expected.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but the core issue was:

1. Whether the appellant’s actions fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, thereby making it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Prakash Chand v. State of H.P. (2004) 11 SCC 381 – Supreme Court of India: The appellant’s counsel relied upon this case to argue that the incident was a result of a sudden fight and the appellant acted in a heat of passion.
• Sukhdev Singh v. Delhi State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2003) 7 SCC 441 – Supreme Court of India: The appellant’s counsel relied upon this case to argue that the incident was a result of a sudden fight and the appellant acted in a heat of passion.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines murder and its exceptions.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Prescribes the punishment for murder.
• Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court used Prakash Chand v. State of H.P. (2004) 11 SCC 381 and Sukhdev Singh v. Delhi State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2003) 7 SCC 441 to understand the concept of sudden fight and heat of passion in relation to Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC.
• The Court analyzed Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to determine if the case fell under the exception of sudden fight.
• The Court referred to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as the provision under which the appellant was originally convicted.
• The Court referred to Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to determine the appropriate punishment for the offense.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Sudden Fight: The court emphasized that the altercation between the appellant and the deceased was a sudden fight, triggered by a dispute over seniority, and that there was no premeditation.
• Heat of Passion: The court noted that the consumption of liquor and the heated exchange of words led to the appellant acting in the heat of passion.
• No Cruel Manner: The court observed that the appellant fired only one bullet, despite having more rounds available, and did not run away, indicating that he did not act in a cruel manner.
• Mitigating Factors: The court considered the appellant’s good conduct and reputation as mitigating factors for determining the sentence.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the alternative interpretation that the act was murder, but rejected it because there was no premeditation, and the act was done in a heat of passion. The court concluded that the appellant’s actions fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, making it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The court held that the appellant was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court stated that the appellant snatched the rifle from the hands of the deceased and fired one bullet at the deceased. This act was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased as was likely to cause death. Therefore, the first part of Section 304 of IPC will apply in this case.

The court quoted from the judgment:

“There was a sudden fight over seniority when the appellant and the deceased had consumed liquor. There was no premeditation.”

“The appellant, in the facts of the case, cannot be said to have acted in such a cruel manner which will deprive him of the benefit of exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC.”

“Therefore, the appellant is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.”

There were no minority opinions.

The court analyzed the facts and evidence, and applied the legal provisions to conclude that the appellant’s actions fell under the exception of sudden fight in the definition of murder. The court considered that the appellant had no intention to cause death, but the act of firing the rifle was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death.

The potential implication for future cases is that it clarifies the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC in cases involving sudden fights, particularly in the context of disciplined forces. It emphasizes that the absence of premeditation and the lack of cruel actions are key factors in determining whether an act falls under this exception.

The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. It applied the existing legal provisions to the specific facts of the case.

Key Takeaways

• A sudden fight without premeditation can lead to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder instead of murder.
• The absence of cruel actions by the accused is a crucial factor in determining whether the exception of sudden fight applies.
• Consumption of liquor and a heated exchange of words can be considered as factors leading to a sudden fight.
• The court considered the mitigating factors of good conduct and reputation in determining the sentence.
• The court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the appellant’s incarceration of 9 years and 3 months.

Directions

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, altering the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced to the term already undergone. The bail bonds of the appellant were cancelled.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in a sudden fight without premeditation, where the accused does not act in a cruel manner, the offense can be considered as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. This case clarifies that the exception can apply even in the context of disciplined forces, where a higher standard of conduct is expected. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court applied the existing law to the facts of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reduced the murder conviction of Lance Naik Gursewak Singh to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, finding that his actions fell under the exception of sudden fight. The court considered the circumstances of the incident, including the absence of premeditation, the heat of passion, and the lack of cruel actions. The court sentenced the appellant to the term already undergone, which was approximately 9 years and 3 months. This judgment highlights the importance of the exception of sudden fight in cases of homicide and emphasizes that each case must be assessed based on its unique facts and circumstances.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Culpable Homicide, Murder, Section 300 IPC, Section 302 IPC, Section 304 IPC, Sudden Fight, Heat of Passion, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Categories: Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What is culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
A: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder is a type of homicide where the act is not committed with the intention of causing death, but there is an intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death, or the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. It is a lesser offense than murder.

Q: What is the exception of ‘sudden fight’ in the context of murder?
A: The exception of ‘sudden fight’ is an exception to the definition of murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. It applies when a person kills another in a sudden fight, without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court reduced the murder conviction of Lance Naik Gursewak Singh to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, finding that the incident was a result of a sudden fight in the heat of passion. The court considered the absence of premeditation and the lack of cruel actions.

Q: What are the implications of this judgment?
A: This judgment clarifies the application of the exception of sudden fight in cases of homicide, especially in the context of disciplined forces. It emphasizes that the absence of premeditation and the lack of cruel actions are key factors in determining whether an act falls under this exception.

Q: What was the sentence given to the appellant?
A: The Supreme Court sentenced the appellant to the term already undergone, which was approximately 9 years and 3 months. The court considered the mitigating factors of good conduct and reputation.