LexBHAGWAN SINGH versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 957 BHAGWAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2020) MARCH 18, 2020 [S. A. BOBDE, CJI, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304-II and 308 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – In a marriage ceremony, father of the groom-appellant aimed the gun towards the roof and then fired – Gun shot firing resulting in death of two and injuries to others – Conviction of appellant u/ss. 302 and 307 and sentenced to life imprisonment and 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine – Upheld by the High Court, however, acquitted for offence u/s. 25 of the Arms Act – On appeal, held: Appellant cannot 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 – Appellant is guilty of causing fatal injuries which are attributable to him – Appellant had the requisite knowledge essential for constituting the offence of ‘culpable homicide’ u/s.299 and punishable u/s.304- II – Thus, he is guilty u/s.304-II and not u/s.302 and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to appellant is reduced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment – Appellant is liable to be punished for ‘attempt to commit culpable homicide’ not amounting to murder u/s.308, in place of s.307 for the injuries caused to other three victims and sentence is substituted accordingly. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The prosecution version to the extent that the appellant aimed at A and then fired the shot(s) is rejected. The evidence on record contrarily shows that the appellant aimed the gun towards the roof and then fired. It was an unfortunate case of mis-firing. The appellant of course cannot absolve himself of the conclusion that he carried a loaded gun at a crowded place where his own guests had gathered to attend the marriage [2020] 4 S.C.R. 957 957 A B C D E F G H 958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 4 S.C.R. 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 gun- shot 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, would amount to ‘culpable homicide’ within the meaning of Section 299, though punishable u/s. 304 Part 2 IPC. [Para 16] [963-G-H; 964-A-C] 1.2 Incidents of celebratory firing are regretfully rising, for they are seen as a status symbol. A gun licensed for self- protection 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 arms convert a happy event to a pall of gloom. Appellant cannot 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. [Para 17] [964-C-D] 1.3 The appellant had the requisite knowledge essential for constituting the offence of ‘culpable homicide’ under Section 299 and punishable under Section 304 Part-2 of IPC. He is thus held guilty under Section 304 Part-2 and not under Section 302 IPC. On the same analogy, the appellant is liable to be punished for ‘attempt to commit culpable homicide’ not amounting to murder under Section 308, in place of Section 307 IPC for the injuries caused to the other three victims. [Para 19] [965-A-B] 1.4 The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is modified to Section 304 Part-2 IPC and that under Section 307 IPC is altered to Section 308, IPC. As a necessary corollary, the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant for committing the offence under Section 302 IPC, is reduced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and the sentence awarded to him under Section 307 IPC is substituted with Section 308 IPC, without any alteration in the fine imposed by the trial court. [Para 20] [965-C-D] A B C D E F G H 959 Kunwar Pal v. State of Uttarakhand (2014) 12 SCC 434 : [2013] 10 SCR 239 - referred to. Case Law Reference [2013] 10 SCR 239 referred to Para 10 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 4
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.