Arvind Kumar vs State of NCT, Delhi

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

17 July 2023

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 2390 of 2010

Result

Partly allowed

Bench

Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal

Citation

[2023] 10 S.C.R. 713 : 2023 INSC 622

Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 : s. 304A – Causing death by negligence – Scuffle between the victim-constable and the appellant-police guard – Semi Automatic Fire (SAF)-carbine of the appellant got entangled in the chain of the appellant’s belt resulting in accidental firing of five rounds of bullets from the SAF of the appellant – Bullets hit the victim in his neck leading to his death – Case of the appellant that he was requested by the sub-inspector to ask the victim to desist from continuing with his conversation on the telephone – Conviction of the appellant u/s. 302 and sentenced to life by the courts below – On appeal, held: Failure to prove the existence of the motive as such the prosecution case regarding intentional firing by the appellant cannot be accepted – Also two eyewitnesses completely supports the defence of the appellant of accidental firing – Furthermore, the interpretation of the statement of the appellant made after the incident whereby he blamed the sub-inspector, and the response of the sub-inspector to the appellant’s statement, is a possible interpretation that is consistent with normal human conduct – Version of the prosecution witnesses about the appellant and the sub-inspector making such statement does not inspire confidence – Prosecution also failed to prove that the appellant had either any intention of causing the death of the victim or the intention of causing such bodily injury to the victim which was likely to cause his death – Thus, not a case of culpable homicide as defined u/s.

299 – However, failure on the part of the appellant who was holding a sophisticated automatic weapon to ensure that the change lever was always kept in a safety position – Gross negligence on the part of the appellant led to a loss of human life – Thus, the appellant guilty of committing a lesser offence punishable u/s. 304A and his conviction u/s. 302 set aside – Evidence Act – s. 6.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. By this appeal, the appellant-accused has taken an exception to the order of his conviction passed by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”). The learned Sessions Judge held that the case of the appellant-accused was covered by “thirdly” in Section 300 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge held that the appellant-accused has failed to bring the case within the protective umbrella of the exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. By the impugned judgment of

View Subscription Plans →