ARVIND KUMAR versus STATE OF NCT, DELHI

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 713 · Decided: 17-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
713
ARVIND KUMAR
v.
STATE OF NCT, DELHI
(Criminal Appeal No. 2390 of 2010)
JULY 17, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
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.
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 713 : 2023 INSC 622
713
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2390 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.07.2010 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLA No. 605 of 2009.
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., Ms. Prerna Mehta, Adv. for the Appellant.
Jayant K. Sud, ASG, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Mukul Singh,
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, P. V. Yogeswaran, Rajan Kr. Chourasia, S. K.
Singhania, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Advs. for the Respondent.
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 the High Court, the conviction of the appellant
has been confirmed. The Trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo
a life sentence. By the time the appellant was released on bail by this
Court by the order dated 27th November 2017, the appellant had undergone
incarceration for a period of about 8 years and 11 months.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Shashi Bala (PW-12)
who was a Sub-inspector of Police was posted as a Duty Officer in I.P.
Estate Police Station, Delhi on 28th December 1994. One constable Mohd.
Rashid (the deceased) was on duty as “Munshi-Roznamacha”. At about
5.45 pm, the deceased came to the reporting room and started talking on
the official telephone of the Police Station. After noticing that the
deceased was talking on the phone for about 5 to 7 minutes, Shashi Bala
(PW-12) advised him not to keep the official telephone engaged as the
Police Station may receive some urgent calls. The case of the prosecution
is that the deceased did not pay heed to the advice of PW-12. The
appellant was posted as a guard at the Police Station. The appellant was
carrying a Semi-Automatic Fire (SAF) – carbine. PW-12 Shashi Bala,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
715
around 5.55 pm, requested the appellant to ask the deceased to desist
from continuing with his conversation on the telephone. Therefore

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.