NO.15138812Y L/NK GURSEWAK SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 1139 · Decided: 27-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1139
NO.15138812Y L/NK GURSEWAK SINGH
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of 2023)
JULY 27, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s. 304 Part I, s 300 exception 4 –
Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder –
Appellant and the victim, both Lance Naik in the Indian Army –
Altercation between them on the issue of seniority, after consuming
liquor – Appellant snatched the rifle from the hands of the victim
and fired one bullet at him, resulting in the death of the victim –
Appellant convicted by the court martial for the offence punishable
u/s. 302 rw s. 69 of the Army Act and sentenced to imprisonment for
life – Order of conviction and sentence upheld by the courts below
– On appeal, held: There was no premeditation on the part of the
appellant – There was a sudden fight between the appellant and
the deceased over the issue of seniority – Every possibility that the
said issue resulted in the appellant snatching the rifle held by the
deceased and firing only one bullet in a heat of passion –
Furthermore, the appellant did not run away and helped others to
take the deceased to a hospital – Hence, there was no intention on
his part to kill the deceased – Appellant cannot be said to have
acted in such a cruel manner which would deprive him of the benefit
of exception 4 to s. 300 – Term ‘cruel’ manner is a relative term, if
the meaning used in common parlance is assigned, in no case
exception 4 can be applied – Thus, exception 4 to s. 300 applicable,
and appellant guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
– Conviction of the appellant altered to the one under Part 1 of s.
304 – In view of the good conduct of the appellant, he is sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for the term which he has already
undergone – Army Act, 1950 – s. 69.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The facts brought on record show that there
was no premeditation on the part of the appellant. Both the
appellant and the deceased had consumed liquor. There was a
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1139 : 2023 INSC 648
1139
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
fight between him and the deceased over the issue of seniority.
In fact, when the appellant told the deceased to bring water for
him, the deceased refused to do so on the ground that he was
senior to the appellant. In a disciplined force like Army, the
seniority has all the importance. Therefore, there is every
possibility that the dispute over seniority resulted in the appellant
doing the act in a heat of passion. It appears that in the heat of
passion, the appellant snatched a rifle held by the deceased and
fired only one bullet. If there was any premeditation on the part
of the appellant or if he had any intention to kill the deceased, he
would have fired more bullets at the deceased. Hence, there was
no intention on his part to kill the deceased. Whether the
appellant had done a cruel act or not, has to be appreciated after
considering three facts. Firstly, the appellant was a soldier on
guard duty, secondly, the appellant and the deceased had a fight
over the seniority and thirdly, though there were 20 rounds in
the rifle of the deceased, he fired only one round. The appellant
cannot be said to have acted in such a cruel manner which would
deprive him of the benefit of exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
The term cruel manner is a relative term. Exception 4 applies
when a man kills another. By ordinary standards, this itself is a
cruel act. The appellant fired only one bullet which proved to be
fatal. He did not fire more bullets though available. He did not
run away and he helped others to take the deceased to a hospital.
If a meaning is assigned to the word ‘cruel’ used in exception 4
which is used in common parlance, in no case exception 4 can be
applied. Therefore, exception 4 to Section 300 was applicable in
this case. Therefore, the appellant is guilty of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder. The appellant snatched the rifle from
the hands of the deceased and fired one bullet at the deceased.
This act was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury
to the deceased as was likely to cause death. Therefore, the first
part of Section 304 IPC would apply. Under the first part of Section
304 IPC, an accused can be punished with imprisonment for life
or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years.
[Para 11][1145-C-H; 1146-A-D]
1.2 PW-5 and PW-10 admitted that the accused had a ‘nice

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