Date of the Judgment: 17 July 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 622
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can a person be convicted of murder if a death occurs due to the accidental firing of a weapon during a scuffle? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where a police constable was killed by a bullet fired from the service weapon of another constable. The court examined whether the accused had the intention to kill or if the death was a result of negligence. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Abhay S. Oka authoring the opinion.
Case Background
On December 28, 1994, at the I.P. Estate Police Station in Delhi, Constable Mohd. Rashid (the deceased) was using the official telephone. Sub-Inspector Shashi Bala (PW-12), the Duty Officer, asked him to end the call, but he did not comply. Arvind Kumar (the appellant), a guard at the station, was asked by PW-12 to intervene. The appellant approached the deceased, and during a scuffle, the appellant’s Semi-Automatic Fire (SAF) carbine discharged, resulting in the death of Mohd. Rashid.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 28, 1994 | Incident occurred at I.P. Estate Police Station, Delhi. Constable Mohd. Rashid was shot and killed. |
| December 29, 1994 | Father of the deceased submitted a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. |
| August 18, 1995 | Ballistic expert, Smt. Asha Dhir, submitted a second report. |
| December 22, 1995 | Ballistic expert, Smt. Asha Dhir, submitted another opinion. |
| November 27, 2017 | The appellant was released on bail by the Supreme Court. |
| July 17, 2023 | The Supreme Court delivered the final judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, a case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered against the appellant for causing death by negligence. However, following a complaint by the deceased’s father and an investigation by the Crime Branch, the charge was changed to Section 302 of the IPC for murder. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, holding that his case was covered by “thirdly” in Section 300 of the IPC and that he failed to bring his case within the exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
- Section 302, IPC: This section defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 300, IPC: This section defines murder and culpable homicide. The judgment refers to “thirdly” in Section 300, which states that culpable homicide is murder if “*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*”. The court also discusses Exception 4 to Section 300, which states that 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.
- Section 304A, IPC: This section deals with causing death by negligence.
- Section 80, IPC: This section addresses accidents in doing a lawful act.
The court also considered Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which pertains to the relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction (res gestae).
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The appellant argued that the firing was accidental. During the scuffle, the SAF carbine got entangled in his belt chain, leading to the accidental discharge.
- He contended that once the motive was disbelieved by the High Court, the prosecution’s case based on circumstantial evidence must fail.
- The appellant submitted that no offense was committed under Section 80 of the IPC, as the death was purely accidental.
- Alternatively, he argued that at most, the second part of Section 304 of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) could be applied, not Section 302 (murder).
State’s Submissions:
- The State supported the judgments of the lower courts.
- The State argued that the ballistic expert’s reports and the ocular evidence showed the appellant had knowledge that using the SAF carbine could cause death.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Accidental Firing | SAF carbine got entangled in the belt chain, leading to accidental discharge. | Appellant |
| Lack of Motive | Once the motive is discarded, the prosecution’s case based on circumstantial evidence must fail. | Appellant |
| Accidental Death | No offense was committed under Section 80 of the IPC, as the death was purely accidental. | Appellant |
| Lesser Offense | At most, the second part of Section 304 of the IPC could be applied, not Section 302. | Appellant |
| Intentional Firing | Ballistic reports and ocular evidence show the appellant had knowledge that using the SAF carbine could cause death. | State |
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant innovatively argued that the prosecution’s case must fail because the motive was disbelieved by the High Court.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the main issue was whether the appellant was guilty of murder under Section 302 of the IPC or if the death was caused by negligence under Section 304A of the IPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellant was guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC? | No | The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death. The firing was deemed accidental. |
| Whether the death was caused by negligence under Section 304A IPC? | Yes | The court held that the appellant was negligent in not keeping the safety lever of the SAF carbine in the safety position, which led to the accidental firing. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Section 6, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Indian Parliament | The court used this provision to assess the relevance of the statements made by the appellant and PW-12 immediately after the incident. |
| Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Indian Parliament | The court analysed this section to determine if the act of the appellant qualified as murder. |
| Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Indian Parliament | The court analysed this section to determine if the act of the appellant qualified as murder or culpable homicide. |
| Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Indian Parliament | The court applied this section to convict the appellant for causing death by negligence. |
| Section 80, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Indian Parliament | The court analysed this section to determine if the act of the appellant was an accident. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Accidental Firing | Accepted. The court concluded that the firing was accidental due to the entanglement of the SAF carbine. |
| Lack of Motive | Accepted. The court agreed that the prosecution failed to prove the motive. |
| Accidental Death | Partially accepted. The court did not accept that the act was a complete accident to exonerate the appellant of any liability. |
| Lesser Offense | Accepted. The court agreed that the offense was not murder, but negligence. |
| Intentional Firing | Rejected. The court found no evidence that the appellant had the intention to kill. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The court held that the statements made by the appellant and PW-12 immediately after the incident were relevant under this provision but were not a confession of guilt.
- Section 302 of the IPC: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of murder under this section.
- Section 300 of the IPC: The court found that the act of the appellant did not fall under the definition of murder but was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Section 304A of the IPC: The court used this provision to convict the appellant for causing death by negligence.
- Section 80 of the IPC: The court found that the act was not a complete accident to exonerate the appellant of any liability.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of evidence supporting intentional firing by the appellant. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary intent for a murder conviction. The testimonies of the eyewitnesses, PW-12 and PW-25, supported the defense’s claim of accidental firing. The ballistic reports, while indicating a close-range firing, did not establish intent. The court also considered the appellant’s statement immediately after the incident, which, while relevant, was not treated as a confession of guilt but as a spontaneous reaction to the events.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of Intent | 40% |
| Accidental Firing | 30% |
| Negligence | 20% |
| Eyewitness Testimony | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
Incident: Scuffle between Appellant and Deceased
SAF Carbine Entangled in Appellant’s Belt Chain
Accidental Firing Occurs
Prosecution Fails to Prove Intent for Murder
Appellant Found Negligent for Not Engaging Safety Lever
Conviction Under Section 304A IPC (Negligence)
The court considered the possibility that the appellant intentionally fired, but rejected it due to lack of evidence. The court also discussed the possibility that the act was a complete accident but rejected it due to the negligence of the appellant in not keeping the safety lever in the safety position.
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s actions did not constitute murder but were a result of negligence. The court stated, “The prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had either any intention of causing the death of the deceased or the intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased which was likely to cause his death.” The court further noted, “However, there is a failure on the part of the appellant who was holding a sophisticated automatic weapon to ensure that the change lever was always kept in a safety position.” The court also observed, “Thus, there is gross negligence on the part of the appellant which led to a loss of human life.”
The court set aside the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and instead convicted the appellant under Section 304A of the IPC for causing death by negligence. Since the appellant had already served more than the maximum sentence for this offense, his detention was deemed no longer necessary, and he was released.
Key Takeaways
- A person cannot be convicted of murder if the death resulted from an accidental firing without the intention to cause death or bodily harm.
- Negligence in handling a firearm, particularly not engaging the safety mechanism, can lead to a conviction for causing death by negligence under Section 304A of the IPC.
- Statements made immediately after an incident are relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, but they are not necessarily a confession of guilt.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant’s bail bonds be cancelled as he had already served the maximum sentence for the offense he was convicted of.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that for a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, the prosecution must prove the intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death. In the absence of such proof, the conviction can be altered to Section 304A of the IPC for causing death by negligence. This case clarifies that accidental firing, without the intent to cause harm, does not constitute murder. There is a change in the previous position of the law as the court reduced the conviction from murder to negligence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Arvind Kumar vs. State of NCT, Delhi, highlights the importance of establishing intent in murder cases. The court reduced the murder conviction to negligence, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary intent for a murder conviction. The case also underscores the responsibility of individuals handling firearms to ensure safety precautions are followed, and that a failure to do so can lead to a conviction for causing death by negligence.