Reportable: Bhagwan Singh ..... Appellants(s) Versus State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondents(s)
Reportable: Bhagwan Singh ..... Appellants(s) Versus State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondents(s)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 407 OF 2020
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Crl.)No. 656 OF 2018]
Bhagwan Singh ..... Appellants(s)
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondents(s)
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
2. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26 th
11th/12th July, 2013 rendered by Learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar
convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal
Digitally signed by
CHARANJEET KAUR
Page | 1
20,000/ in default whereof he was directed to undergo 6 months’
additional rigorous imprisonment, was dismissed. The appellant was,
Arms Act for want of the requisite sanction.
3. It may be mentioned at the outset that notice of the special leave
petition was issued on the limited question to determine the nature of
facts may be briefly noted.
Facts:
4. On 21st April, 2007, the marriage ceremony of the Appellant’s
5:30 pm as soon as the marriage procession reached the Appellant’s
courtyard he suddenly fired celebratory gunshots. The pellets struck
Chanchal Singh, Khushal Singh @ Sonu, Ummed Singh (P.W.6), Smt.
Vimla W/o Devendra Singh (P.W.5) and Smt. Vimla W/o Bhupal Singh
(P.W.7). The injured were taken to the hospital where two of them –
Anita and Khushal Singh @ Sonu succumbed to their injuries. Later at
about 8:40 pm, Dharam Singh (P.W.3) filed an FIR at PS Kothwali,
was a witness.
5. After the conclusion of investigation, initially a charge sheet
Page | 2
under Section 304, IPC was filed but later on the appellant was
charged under Sections 302 and 307, IPC along with Section 25 of the
Arms Act.
6. The Ld. Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of offences
shots from his son’s licensed gun causing fatal injuries to Smt. Anita
sentenced in the manner as briefly noticed in the opening paragraph
of the order.
7. The appellant went in appeal before the High Court. His primary
contention was that he had no intention to cause anyone’s death. He
stated that the firing was accidental and was caused by a ball with
which some children were playing. The ball struck against the gun in
his hand and led to the firing of shots. The occurrence was an
admitted fact and the only plea taken was that it being a case of
accidental firing, Section 300 punishable under Section 302, IPC was
not attracted.
8. The High Court rejected the appellant’s plea and held as follows:
“There is no merit in the submission put forth by learned
Advocates appearing for the appellant. PW2 Chanchal Singh
has categorically deposed that the appellant has aimed at his
wife Smt. Anita and fired. The bullet hit on her chest. She was
taken to the hospital and declared dead. In his cross
examination, he has denied the suggestion that the ball has
struck against the gun which led to accidental fire. PW3
Page | 3
Dharam Singh has also admitted that the injuries were caused
by the accused with the firearm. The injured were taken to the
hospital. He has also denied that it was a case of accidental
fire. PW4 Tejpal Singh is another eyewitness. According to him
the appellant fired. The pellets had hit Anita and his son
Khushal @ Sonu. He has also denied the suggestion that it was
an accidental fire. PW5 Vimla Devi W/o Devendra Singh has
also corroborated the statements of eyewitnesses PW2
Chandchal (sic.) Singh and PW4 Tejpal Singh. According to her
also, the appellant has fired and she suffered the pellet injuries
and was taken to the hospital. PW6 Ummed Singh is another
eyewitness. According to him also, the appellant was seen
holding a gun. He also received the injuries. He was taken to the
hospital for treatment. He has also denied that it was a case of
accidental fire. PW7 Vimla Devi W/o Bhupal Singh is also the
eyewitness. According to her, the appellant fired his gun and
she along with others had received the pellet injuries. She was
also taken to the hospital. He has admitted in the cross
examination that the appellant fired aiming Anita Devi and
Khushal Singh.”
The High Court has further held that:
“Appellant was standing on the roof. He aimed at Anita Devi.
The bullet struck Anita Devi on her chest. Khushal Singh @ Sonu
also received firearm injuries. Other persons also suffered the
pellet injuries by firearm. Appellant was seen shooting by PW2
Chanchal Singh, PW4 Tejpal Singh, PW5 Smt. Vimla Devi W/o
Devendra Singh, PW6 Ummed Singh and PW7 Vimla Devi W/o
Bhupal Singh. It cannot be termed as the case of negligence. The
accused had knowledge throughout that if the bullet is fired
aiming at a particular person, it would result in his/her death.”
Page | 4
9. As stated earlier, this Court issued notice restricted to the nature
of the offence. The appellant’s culpability of causing the death of Smt.
same has been seriously reagitated before us.
Contentions:
contended that this is a case of celebratory firing which unfortunately
others. It is not ‘culpable homicide’ because the appellant had, while
firing towards roof, no knowledge that the act was likely to cause
death. He contended that such an act amounts to negligence of the
nature as defined under Section 304A, IPC. Learned senior counsel
under Section 304 Part2, IPC, for the appellant can be said to have
the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death but he had no
intention to cause death or such bodily injury likely to cause death.
Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Kunwar Pal vs.
State of Uttarakhand1.
11. Conversely, learned State Counsel reiterated that the appellant
Page | 5
record does suggest that while standing on the roof he aimed at Smt.
Anita and fired the gunshot and the bullet struck her chest. Similarly,
Khushal Singh admittedly died of those injuries.
Analysis:
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record. From the contents of FIR read with the statements of injured
and eyewitnesses, it emerges out that there was a marriage function
of son of the appellant and no sooner did the rituals of marriage were
performed at about 5.30 p.m., the appellant fired from a licensed gun
injuries. Smt. Anita as well as Khushal Singh were present there in
order to participate in the marriage celebrations which suggests that
neither they nor their families had any animosity with the appellant.
Similarly, Dharm Singh (P.W.3) – complainant, too had no axe to grind
against the appellant. The eyewitness account further reveals that
the shots were fired towards the roof and not aiming at any of the
victims. It may thus be difficult to accept that the appellant had any
intention to kill Smt. Anita or Khushal Singh.
that he was only holding the licenced gun and a ball thrown by the
Page | 6
children who were playing with it, struck the gun causing accidental
firing. The version of eyewitnesses completely belies such a defence
story. Otherwise also, it does not appeal to common sense that a ball
would strike the gun in appellant’s hand resulting in an undesigned
firing. Unless the safety lock of the gun was moved forward, the gun
wouldn’t go off automatically even if its butt was hit by a playball.
Appellant’s attempt to shelter behind Section 304A, IPC is thus an
exercise in futility and is liable to be rejected.
14. In this backdrop, the short question which falls for consideration
Khushal Singh tantamounts to offence of ‘murder’ as held by the trial
court and the High Court or any lesser offence as urged by Shri
Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for the appellant. Sections
299 as well as 300, IPC provide for situations in which death is caused
by an act with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury
which the offender knows is likely to cause death. Both Sections 299
and 300 deal with instances in which death is caused by an act with
the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be
likely to cause death of the person to whom injury is inflicted. These
provisions also deal with cases where there is no intention of either
causing death or a bodily injury which is ordinarily sufficient to cause
death. The absence of intention to cause death or bodily injury which
Page | 7
is in the ordinary course of nature likely to cause death is, therefore,
not conclusive. What is required to be seen is whether the act is one
where the offender must be deemed to have had the knowledge that he
was likely, by such act, to cause death.
15. The trial court as well as the High Court have proceeded on the
premise that the appellant’s act by firing from the gun which was
pointed towards the roof, was as bad as firing into a crowd of persons
imminently dangerous that it would, in all probability, cause death or
such bodily injury as was likely to cause death.
16. The facts and circumstances of the instant case, however, do not
shows that the appellant aimed the gun towards the roof and then
loaded gun at a crowded place where his own guests had gathered to
attend the marriage ceremony. He did not take any reasonable safety
measure like to fire the shot in the air or towards the sky, rather he
invited full risk and aimed the gun towards the roof and fired the shot.
He was expected to know that pellets could cause multiple gunshot
Page | 8
injuries to the nearby persons even if a single shot was fired. The
appellant is, thus, guilty of an act, the likely consequences of which
including causing fatal injuries to the persons being in a close circuit,
are attributable to him. The offence committed by the appellant, thus,
299, though punishable under Section 304 Part 2 of the IPC.
17. Incidents of celebratory firing are regretfully rising, for they are
seen as a status symbol. A gun licensed for selfprotection or safety
and security of crops and cattle cannot be fired in celebratory events,
it being a potential cause of fatal accidents. Such like misuse of fire
escape the consequences of carrying the gun with live cartridges with
the knowledge that firing at a marriage ceremony with people present
there was imminently dangerous and was likely to cause death.
wherein this Court held as under:
“12. We find that the intention of the appellant to kill the deceased,
if any, has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and in any
case the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt which is
prominent in this case. It is not possible therefore to sustain the
sentence under Section 304 Part I IPC, which requires that the act
by which death is caused, must be done with the intention of
causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as
is likely to cause death. Though it is not possible to attribute
intention it is equally not possible to hold that the act was done
without the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. Everybody,
Page | 9
who carries a gun with live cartridges and even others know that
firing a gun and that too in the presence of several people is an act,
is likely to cause death, as indeed it did. Guns must be carried
with a sense of responsibility and caution and are not meant to be
used in such places like marriage ceremonies.”
knowledge essential for constituting the offence of ‘culpable homicide’
under Section 299 and punishable under Section 304 Part2 of IPC.
He is thus held guilty under Section 304 Part2 and not under Section
punished for ‘attempt to commit culpable homicide’ not amounting to
murder under Section 308, in place of Section 307 of IPC for the
appellant’s contentions merit acceptance.
Conclusion:
20. For the abovestated reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The
Section 304 Part2, IPC and that under Section 307, IPC is altered to
under Section 302 IPC, is reduced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment
substituted with Section 308 IPC, without any alteration in the fine
imposed by the trial court.
Page | 10
……………………………....
(S.A. BOBDE)
CJI
……..……………………..J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
…………………………… J.
(SURYA KANT)
NEW DELHI
DATED : 18.03.2020
Page | 11