BALWANT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 18-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
-
BALWANT SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 18, 1994 
{K JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.) 
B 
Indian Penal Code, !~Section 304A-l'olice pally on d11ty-Clash-
Constable firing without any aim to scare away people includi11g attack-
e~Shots hitting by-standers-Death-Nature of offence-Held guilty of of-
fence under Sectio11 304-A and 11ot under ~ctio11 2® or 300. 
C 
'Rash Act'-W/1at is. 
The appellant, A-2, a Police Constable, was .tried under Section 302 
1.P.C. and alongwith him two other Constables A·l and A·3, were also tried 
under Sections 302(34 I.P.C. on the basis of a.Complaint filed by P.W.S, D 
brother of one of the deceased. The complainant's case was that on 13.9.93 
at 9 P .M. he heard the alarm of lleceased No.1 and 2 from the side of a 
nearby Dour mill of his house. On going to the scene of occurrence he saw 
that A·l and A-3, who were beating PW-11, instigated the appellant to 
shoot the deceased saying that they had come to help PW-11. Immediately E 
thereafter the appellant fired two shots from his service riOe, first of which 
hit cleCeased No.1 and the second hit deceased No.2 resulting in their 
death. The third shot fired by the appellant did not hit anyone. In the 
meantime PW-10 reached the spot and when PW·S and PW·lO tried to 
overpower the appellant, A·3 attacked them with a danda and in self· 
defence PWs 5, 10 and 11 lnOicted Injuries on the accused with sotas. The F 
appellant also received Injuries at the hands or the complainant. 
The version of the accused was that they went to the place of 
octurrence in connection with law and order problem and they bad also 
to serve a challan on PW·ll and bis brother They met PW·ll, near the 
Dour mill, who was armed with Gandasa. An altercation took place between G 
them and in the meantime brother of PW-11 also came there armed with 
Gandasa and assaulted A-3, while PW-11 assaulted A·l. Thereafter the 
appellant fired a shot in the air in order to scare them away but when they 
did not stop assaulting be fired another shot In the air and then brother 
or PW-11 gave a blow on appellant's bead while PW·ll grappled with him. H 
9 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) 2 S.C.R. 
A In that process a shot went ofl' from the rlOe which bit two persons who 
were coming tOWQrds the place of occurrence in line one behind the other. 
The Trial Court acquitted all the three accused. On appeal the High 
Court confirmed the acquittal of A·l and A·3 but set aside the order of 
acquittal of the appellant and convicted him under Section 302 and sen· 
tenced him to undergo imprisonment for life holding that (i) there was no 
probability of accidental firing; (ii) both tht; by-standers-deceased were hit 
by two separate shots and; (iii) the right of private defence was not 
available to the appellant as against innocent by-standers. 
C 
In appeals to this Court it was contended on-behalf of the appellant 
that under the circumstances the appellant was only discharging his duty 
and he cannot be held guilty of any offence or at the most he was punish· 
able under Section 304·A I.P.C. On behalf of the complainant it was 
contended that the appellant must atleast be attributed knowledge that the 
act committed by him was imminently dangerous; therefore, the offence 
D committed by him was punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 
Allowing the appeals in part, this Court 
HELD : 1. The appellant had no cause to intentionally shoot at the 
E deceased persons. As found by the High Court the appellant started firing 
indiscriminately only after the clash took place between PW-11 and .the 
A·l. The accused Including the appellant were also attacked by PW-11 and 
his brother and they received Injuries at their hands. If, in such a situation, 
the appellant as ordered by A·l fired it cannot be said that he intentionally 
did so nor he could be attributed definite knowledge that be was likely to 
F shoot some by-standers. In such a situation any of the clauses of Section 
2119 or300 I.P.C. Is not clearly attracted. (15-G, 17-A·B·CJ 
2. The provisions of Section 304·A apply to cases where there Is no 
intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all prob· 
G abilities will cause death. Therefore, this provision is directed at offences 
outside the range of Sections 2119 and 300 I.P.C. 11nd ob•iously con· 
templates those cases into which neither intention nor knowledge enters. 
The words 'not amounting to culpable homicide' in the Section are ve

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