'Revenge Is A Powerful Instinct': Delhi High Court Cites S.8 Evidence Act To Uphold Conviction Of Sentry For Killing Colleague

While upholding the conviction of a sentry for vengeful murder of his colleague, the Delhi High Court observed that revenge is a powerful, instinctual and momentarily rewarding emotional response that rarely translates into genuine, lasting peace or well-being. Cautioning the citizens against giving into such emotions, a division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Vimal Kumar Yadav further observed,“While revenge can provide a temporary rush of satisfaction by resorting to a perceived “moral balance”, it often perpetuates pain, prolong negative feelings and can lead to a destructive cycle of retaliation instead of resolution. Feelings of revenge often keep wound “green” and the offender at the centre of one's thoughts. This rumination perpetuates anger and distress rather than resolving it. “Magnitude gap” activated by the feelings of revenge, makes the offender to perceive the retaliation to be more satisfying than not acting to the situation. Such feelings are powerful, instinctual and momentarily rewarding emotional response that rarely translates into genuine, lasting peace or well-being.”The remarks were made while upholding the Appellant's conviction and life term for murder of Lance Naik.As per prosecution, the Appellant was beaten by Lance Naik Kanhaiya Lal when they were on duty at Guard Room. In revenge, the Appellant fired fatal shots from his rifle, leading to Kanhaiya Lal's death.In appeal, it was argued that the evidence was circumstantial and in the absence of any direct evidence as to whether the Appellant fired any gunshot on the victim, he must be acquitted.The prosecutor argued that there cannot be any other inference except that of the involvement of the Appellant in the incident. The presence of the Appellant with a rifle in his hand near the cot where the deceased was sleeping reflects nothing else but his involvement. After examining the evidence on record, the High Court too was of the opinion that prosecution has led direct evidence to establish its case against the Appellant, to the hilt.It observed that the Appellant's feeling of revenge was a relevant factor, constituting the motive of the offence.“Such feelings of anger are relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872 , since it provides motive to the offender to commit crime,” it said.Section 8 states that any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.“Since the evidence brought over the record clinches as to who fired a shot from rifle Ex. P-1. Evidence of finger prints would have been a corroborative piece of evidence, absence of which cannot take away the weight of the evidence brought over the record,” the Court added and dismissed the appeal.Appearance: Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, Advocate for Appellant; Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for State.Case title: Ram Singar Singh v. StateCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1668Case no.: CRL.A. 173/2003Click here to read order

'Revenge Is A Powerful Instinct': Delhi High Court Cites S.8 Evidence Act To Uphold Conviction Of Sentry For Killing Colleague

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags