Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Police Station Murder Case: Surender Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (3 July 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 3 July 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 462
Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Rajesh Bindal

Can a plea of self-defense or grave and sudden provocation justify a murder committed inside a police station? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a police constable was convicted for murdering his relative inside the Mayur Vihar Police Station in Delhi. The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by the defense, ultimately upholding the conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and for attempted murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment underscores the severity with which the court views violence, especially when perpetrated by a law enforcement officer, and emphasizes the importance of credible witness testimony and forensic evidence in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of one Satish, who was the first cousin and neighbor of the appellant, Surender Singh, a police constable posted at the Mayur Vihar Police Station in Delhi. The prosecution argued that Satish was having an illicit relationship with Surender’s wife. On June 30, 2002, at approximately 11:40 am, Surender, while on duty, shot Satish inside the police station using his official 9mm carbine. The incident occurred after a conversation between the two, witnessed by several police personnel. Satish was seen running towards the duty officer’s room, bleeding, with Surender firing at him from behind. The firing resulted in Satish’s death and injuries to a female head constable, PW-2, who was also present at the scene. An FIR was lodged at 2:30 pm, based on the statement of PW-2.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Surender Singh under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment and 7 years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The High Court of Delhi dismissed his appeal, upholding the Trial Court’s decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing self-defense and grave and sudden provocation.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for attempted murder.
• Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: States that the burden of proving that a case falls within the general exceptions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, lies with the accused. “When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.”
• Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines when culpable homicide is not murder. “Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.”
• Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with the procedure for evidence for the prosecution, including the discretion of the court to defer cross-examination.

Arguments

The appellant argued that he acted in self-defense, claiming that the deceased came to the police station to kill him and tried to snatch his weapon. Alternatively, he argued that the act was a result of grave and sudden provocation, which should reduce the offense to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The prosecution, on the other hand, presented eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence to establish that the appellant had intentionally murdered the deceased. The prosecution also argued that the appellant had a motive to kill the deceased due to the illicit relationship with his wife.

The arguments can be summarized as follows:

Innovativeness of the argument: The defense’s argument of self-defense and grave and sudden provocation was not novel, but the attempt to portray the deceased as the aggressor within the confines of a police station, where the appellant was an armed officer, was a unique approach.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the appellant’s actions constitute murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
2. Whether the appellant’s plea of self-defense is valid under the given circumstances?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Surender Singh for murder under Section 302 and attempted murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court found that the appellant’s claims of self-defense and grave and sudden provocation were not supported by evidence. The court emphasized the importance of eyewitness testimony, particularly that of PW-2, and the forensic evidence, which corroborated the prosecution’s case.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court referred to State of U.P v. Shambhu Nath Singh [(2001) 4 SCC 667], Ambika Prasad v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(2000) 2 SCC 646] and Mohd. Khalid v. State of W.B. [(2002) 7 SCC 334] to emphasize that cross-examination should not be deferred without sufficient reasons.
• The Court referred to State of Kerala v. Rasheed [(2019) 13 SCC 297] to highlight the guidelines for when cross-examination can be deferred, emphasizing the need for sufficient reasons.
• The Court relied on State of M.P. v. Ramesh [(2005) 9 SCC 705] to explain that the burden of proof lies with the accused to prove self-defense under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The Court referred to Salim Zia v. State of U.P. [(1979) 2 SCC 648] to clarify that while the burden of proof for self-defense is not as onerous as the prosecution’s, it still requires a reasonable degree of satisfaction.
• The Court cited K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1962 SC 605] to explain that provocation must be grave and sudden enough to temporarily deprive a reasonable person of self-control to reduce murder to culpable homicide.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The consistent and credible testimony of eyewitnesses, particularly PW-2, who was also an injured witness.
• The forensic evidence, including the post-mortem report, which confirmed that the deceased had multiple bullet wounds, including one fired at close range.
• The lack of evidence to support the appellant’s claims of self-defense and grave and sudden provocation.
• The established motive of the appellant to kill the deceased due to the illicit relationship with his wife.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the appellant’s claims of self-defense and grave and sudden provocation. However, these were rejected due to the lack of supporting evidence and the overwhelming evidence against the appellant. The court reasoned that the nature of the crime, the weapon used, and the number of shots fired indicated a clear intent to kill, not an act of self-defense or a reaction to provocation.

The court’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and evidence. The court concluded that the appellant had committed a premeditated murder, not a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court observed:

• “The prosecution case is primarily based on the statement of the eye witnesses present in the Police Station itself and mainly PW-2 who is a lady head constable and also the complainant. This witness has remained steadfast to her version of the incident, which was given in the first information report lodged by her; and later in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination, during the trial.”
• “The plea of self-defence and in the alternative the plea of grave and sudden provocation taken by the appellant is based on the theory that it was the deceased who came to the police station in full speed in his car thereby first hitting the gate of the police station and then making an attempt to snatch the weapon from the appellant in order to kill him. But these arguments do not hold any ground and most importantly there is not even an iota of evidence to sustain this bizarre line of defence.”
• “In the present case on every possible count the case is nothing but a case of murder. The nature of weapon used; the number of gun shots fired at the deceased; the part of the body where gun shots are fired, all point towards the fact that the appellant was determined to kill the deceased.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

Key Takeaways

• The burden of proving self-defense or grave and sudden provocation lies with the accused.
• Eyewitness testimony, especially from credible witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt.
• Forensic evidence plays a vital role in corroborating eyewitness accounts and establishing the nature of the crime.
• The courts will not accept pleas of self-defense or provocation without sufficient evidence.
• The nature of the weapon used, the number of shots fired, and the location of injuries are critical factors in determining intent.
• The courts take a serious view of violence, particularly when perpetrated by law enforcement officers.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court to ensure compliance.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the burden of proving self-defense or grave and sudden provocation lies with the accused, and such pleas will not be accepted without sufficient evidence. This case reinforces the existing legal principles regarding self-defense, provocation, and the burden of proof, rather than introducing a new legal principle.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Surender Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024 INSC 462) reaffirms the importance of credible evidence and the strict application of the law in cases of murder. The court’s rejection of the appellant’s defense underscores the gravity of the crime and the responsibility of law enforcement officers to uphold the law. The judgment serves as a reminder that claims of self-defense or provocation must be substantiated by evidence and cannot be used to justify acts of violence.