Brief Facts
- The Appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
- As per the case of the Appellant the deceased and the Appellant were posted in the same police station. The deceased was engaged in conversation on the telephone of the Police Station and the Appellant went to ask him to end the call, during which accidently SemiAutomatic Fire (SAF) – carbine of the Appellant got entangled in the chain attached to the appellant’s belt which led to the accidental firing of five rounds from the said automatic weapon. However, as per the case of the Prosecution, the Appellant was having illicit relation with one of the sub-inspector in the said police station which came to the knowledge of the deceased and the Appellant intentionally killed deceased.
- The Trial Court and the High Court held that the defence of accidental firing cannot be accepted and that the act of firing bullets by the appellant was intentional and convicted the Appellant under Section 302 IPC.
Issue
- Whether statement of an accused to which Section 6 of Evidence Act is applicable be treated as a confession of guilt?
- Whether the present case would be covered under culpable homicide as defined under Section 299 of IPC?
Held
- The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 of IPC and held him guilty for the offence under Section 304A IPC as his conduct in not taking the minimum care while holding a sophisticated automatic weapon tantamount to gross negligence.
- Going by the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it will have to be held that the SAF got entangled with the chain attached to the belt of the appellant. Considering the opinion of the expert, it is obvious that when the incident occurred, the change lever was not kept in a safety position by the appellant and therefore, SAF got cocked which resulted in the firing of five bullets. The appellant must take the blame for not taking the elementary precaution of keeping the change lever in the safety position.
- Having carefully perused the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, the case of the prosecution that he intentionally opened fire by aiming at the deceased was not put to the appellant.
- Section 5 of the Evidence Act provides that evidence may be given in a proceeding of the existence or nonexistence of every fact in issue and of such other facts which are declared to be relevant under the provisions of Chapter II of the Evidence Act, 1872. Section 6 is applicable to facts which are not in issue. Such facts become relevant only when the same satisfy the tests laid down in Section 6. Hence, the statement of an accused to which Section 6 is applicable cannot be treated as a confession of guilt. The statement becomes relevant which can be read in evidence as it shows the conduct of the appellant immediately after the incident. In any case, in the facts of the case, we have held that the version of the two witnesses who have deposed about the appellant making such statement does not inspire confidence.
- 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. Assuming that when the appellant approached the deceased to stop him from using the telephone, he was aware that the change lever was not in a safety position, 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. The knowledge of the possibility of the deceased who was himself a policeman pulling SAF carbine cannot be attributed to the appellant. In fact, the appellant could not have imagined that the deceased would do anything like this. Thus, by no stretch of the 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.
Relevant Para No.
- 14, 15, 18, 19