Death By Accidental Firing : Supreme Court Converts Conviction Of Cop From Section 302 To Section 304A IPC

The Supreme Court recently converted the conviction of a Delhi Police guard under Section 302 IPC(Murder) to Section 304A(causing death by negligence) in the case related to the death of a constable due to accidental firing. The appellant armed with a semiautomatic weapon was merely asking the deceased constable to get off the phone when a playful scuffle led to the tragic incident.The Supreme Court held that even if it is assumed that the Semi-Automatic weapon pistol was not in a safety position, it cannot be said that the appellant knew that by not keeping the weapon in the safety position, he was likely to cause the death of the deceased. The Court held that none of the ingredients of ingredients of culpable homicide was made out. However, it held that there was gross negligence on the part of the appellant in not keeping the semi-automatic weapon in a safe position.The Supreme Court comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal was hearing an appeal from the High Court which had affirmed the punishment of life imprisonment sentenced by the Session court. “It is not possible to attribute knowledge to him that by his failure to keep SAF in the safety position, he was likely to cause the death of the deceased. By no stretch of imagination, it is a case of culpable homicide as defined under Section 299 of IPC as the existence of none of the three ingredients incorporated therein was proved by the prosecution". the Court observed. In view of the fact that the maximum punishment under section 304A IPC was 2 years and the appellant had already undergone imprisonment for 8 years, the court found his detention no longer necessary.BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASEIt was a regular day at the police station when the deceased Constable was talking over the phone in the reporting room. With him being on the line, Duty Officer Shashi Bala was concerned that they might miss urgent calls at the police station. She asked one of the guards to ensure that he hung up the phone. The guard who was armed with a semiautomatic weapon tapped on the shoulders of the constable who pushed him away jokingly. In the scuffle, the weapon was triggered and the constable died in the accidental firing. The guard was accused of murder under section 302 and was given a life sentence. A playful thing turned into a nightmare for the guard who spent more than 8 years in jail-that too only in the course of asking the constable to put down the phone. PROCEDURAL HISTORYThe Sessions Court judge had held that the case of the present appellant would be covered by the “thirdly” clause of section 300 IPC. It was held that the appellant could not bring his case within exception 4 to section 300 IPC. The court, thus, sentenced him to undergo a life sentence.On appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction. The High Court had disbelieved the existence of motive based on evidence of PW-3,18 and 22. The court relied on the testimony of PW-13 who heard the cry of the deceased “mujhe bachao” and firing of SAF. Upon seeing the deceased, he heard the appellant saying “Madam aapne yeh kya karva diya, Mere to bache barbad ho jayenge". The Court applied the doctrine of res gestae covered by Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.Aggrieved by the said decision, the accused filed an appeal before the Supreme Court referred to as Appellant in this matter.ARGUMENTSThe Appellant submitted that once the motive is discarded, the case based on circumstantial evidence would fail. He contended that it was purely an accidental death covered under section 80, IPC. At best, offence under section 304IPC can be made out.The respondent relied on ballistic experts and ocular evidence to contest that appellant had the knowledge that the use of carbine may cause death.SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSISFailure to prove motive makes the prosecution case of intentional firing not acceptableThe Court did not go into the aspect of motive since the impugned judgment of HC made a finding that no motive could be attributed to the appellant. The HC came to such a conclusion based on the testimonies of PW3 Nazir Ahmed, PW18 SubInspector Ram Singh, and PW22 Shaukat Ali, the father of the deceased.Eyewitnesses support the defense of the appellant of accidental firingThe Court observed that “the version of PW12 and PW25 who were claiming to be the eyewitnesses completely support the defence of the appellant of accidental firing and in any case, they have not deposed that the appellant intentionally fired bullets at the deceased”.The court noted that the testimony of the father of the deceased was disbelieved by the HC since his statement was made after a few months.Firearm could be cocked by entangling with chain: Ballistic expertBased on various expert opinions rendered in this case, the court concluded that “it is apparent that if the change lever is not in the safety position, the firearm can be cocked by entangling with a chain. The appellant must take the blame for not taking the elementary...

Death By Accidental Firing : Supreme Court Converts Conviction Of Cop From Section 302 To Section 304A IPC

Suraj Kumar

Tags