Brief Facts
- It is alleged that on the night of 4th December 2004, the deceased brought a bottle of country liquor. The Appellant, the deceased and the Guard Commander consumed liquor. Thereafter, there was an altercation between the Appellant and the deceased on the issue of inter-se seniority. At that time, the Guard commander intervened. The deceased replaced gunner Gurtej Singh (PW-14) for guard duty outside the guard room. Thereafter, the Appellant went out when there were heated arguments between the Appellant and the deceased on the issue of seniority. At that time, the Appellant snatched the rifle from the hands of the deceased and fired one bullet at the deceased. The Appellant accompanied others for taking the deceased to a hospital where he was declared dead. The Appellant was arrested on the same day. The Appellant only fired one round though there were 20 rounds in the rifle of the deceased.
Issues
- Whether the conduct of the Appellant prior to the incident and after the incident would fall under the preview of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 of the IPC instead of section 302 IPC?
- What would be the liability of the accused when the facts of the case establish that there was no pre-mediation and intention to kill?
Held
- The Apex Court partly allowed the appeal and the conviction of the Appellant was modified from section 302 to Section Part I of the 304 IPC.
- The Court concluded that the appellant did not have any pre-meditation to kill the deceased and acted in the heat of passion during a sudden fight over seniority, exacerbated by the consumption of liquor. The appellant did not initially have a weapon and used the deceased’s rifle, firing only one shot out of 20 available rounds, which indicated no intention to kill. After the incident, the appellant did not flee; instead, he assisted in lifting the deceased, disclosed the incident truthfully to witnesses, and helped transport the deceased to the hospital.
- The circumstances showed that both the appellant and the deceased were under the influence of alcohol, and the conflict arose suddenly due to a dispute over seniority—a significant matter in the disciplined environment of the army.
- The term cruel manner is a relative term. Exception 4 of section 300 of IPC applies when a man kills another. By ordinary standards, this itself is a cruel act. The appellant fired only one bullet which proved to be fatal. He did not fire more bullets though available. He did not run away and he helped others to take the deceased to a hospital. If we assign a meaning to the word ‘cruel’ used in exception 4 which is used in common parlance, in no case exception 4 can be applied. Therefore, in our view, exception 4 to Section 300 was applicable in this case. Therefore, the appellant is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Relevant Para No.
- 11 and 13