Surender Singh vs State (NCT of Delhi)

Held: All the evidences are unassailable – Prosecution case stands secured on these evidences – It is a clear case of murder – Motive for the appellant that the deceased was having an affair with his wife, and the execution of the crime at the Police Station, all point towards the murder committed inside the police station by the appellant – One fire arm injury with blackening at the entry point also explains that the deceased was first shot from a close range – Remaining injuries also correlate with the testimony of the eye witnesses – Plea of self-defence and in the alternative the plea of grave and sudden provocation taken by the appellant that it was the deceased who came to the police station in full speed in his car thereby first hitting the gate of the police station and then making an attempt to snatch the weapon from the appellant in order to kill him, do not hold any ground – Defence not been able to establish a case of private defence by any evidence – Eye witness accounts of police personnels who were all present at the Police Station at that point of time, establish a case of murder beyond any reasonable doubt – Thus, the nature of weapon used; number of gun shots fired at the deceased; part of the body where gun shots are fired, all point towards the fact that the appellant was determined to kill the deceased and ultimately, he achieved his task – Not a case of any lesser magnitude, and definitely not culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Facts do not even remotely make out any case under exception 1 to s. 300, or under any other exceptions to s. 300 IPC – Interferance with the findings of the courts below not called for – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 105. [Paras 19-26]

Penal Code, 1860 – s. 300 exception 1 – Culpable homicide when not amounting to murder – Provocation when grave and sudden to bring the case under exception 1 to s. 300: Held: In order to convert a case of murder to a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, provocation must be such that would temporarily deprive the power of self-control of a “reasonable person” – Provocation itself is not enough to reduce the crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Time gap between this alleged provocation and the act of homicide; the kind of weapon used; the number of blows, etc, is also to be seen – These are again all questions of facts – There is no standard or test as to what reasonableness should be in these circumstances as this would again be a question of fact to be determined by a Court. [Para 25]

Criminal trial – Cross-examination of witness deferred by two months – Effect:

Held: Such long adjournment after examination-in-chief, should never be given – This may affect the fairness of the trial and may even endanger, in a given case, the safety of the witness – As far as possible, the defence should be asked to cross examine the witness the same day or the following day – Only in very exceptional cases, and for reasons to be recorded, the cross examination should be deferred and a short adjournment can be given after taking precautions and care, for the witness, if it is required – Courts should be slow in deferring these matters – This practice is not a healthy practice – Mandate of s. 231 Cr.PC and the law laid down on the subject to be followed in its letter and spirit – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 231.[Paras11,13]