LexSURENDER SINGH versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 163 : 2024 INSC 462 Surender Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2012) 03 July 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Correctness of the order of the High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under ss. 302 and 307 IPC . Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 307, s. 300 exception 1 – Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, when – Plea of self-defence – Prosecution case that the appellant- police guard committed murder of the deceased inside the police station while he was on duty – Deceased was having illicit relationship with the appellant’s wife – Deceased and the appellant last seen together in conversation with each other inside the police station by more than one witnesses even minutes before these witnesses saw the appellant killing the deceased with his official 9 m.m. carbine – Plea of self defence by the appellant that the death of the deceased was caused by the appellant when the appellant was deprived of his power of self-control due to grave and sudden provocation caused by the deceased which resulted in his death by accident – Conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences ss. 302 and 307 by the courts below – Justification: Held: All the evidences are unassailable – Prosecution case stands secured on these evidences – It is a clear case of murder – Motive for the appellant that the deceased was having an affair with his wife, and the execution of the crime at the Police Station, all point towards the murder committed inside the police station by the appellant – One fire arm injury with blackening at the entry point also explains that the deceased was first shot from a close range – Remaining injuries also correlate with the testimony of the eye witnesses – Plea of self-defence and in the alternative the * Author 164 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports plea of grave and sudden provocation taken by the appellant that it was the deceased who came to the police station in full speed in his car thereby first hitting the gate of the police station and then making an attempt to snatch the weapon from the appellant in order to kill him, do not hold any ground – Defence not been able to establish a case of private defence by any evidence – Eye witness accounts of police personnels who were all present at the Police Station at that point of time, establish a case of murder beyond any reasonable doubt – Thus, the nature of weapon used; number of gun shots fired at the deceased; part of the body where gun shots are fired, all point towards the fact that the appellant was determined to kill the deceased and ultimately, he achieved his task – Not a case of any lesser magnitude, and definitely not culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Facts do not even remotely make out any case under exception 1 to s. 300, or under any other exceptions to s. 300 IPC – Interferance with the findings of the courts below not called for – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 105. [Paras 19-26] Penal Code, 1860 – s. 300 exception 1 – Culpable homicide when not amounting to murder – Provocation when grave and sudden to bring the case under exception 1 to s. 300: Held: In order to convert a case of murder to a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, provocation must be such that would temporarily deprive the power of self-control of a “reasonable person” – Provocation itself is not enough to reduce the crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Time gap between this alleged provocation and the act of homicide; the kind of weapon used; the number of blows, etc, is also to be seen – These are again all questions of facts – There is no standard or test as to what reasonableness should be in these circumstances as this would again be a question of fact to be determined by a Court. [Para 25] Criminal trial – Cross-examination of witness deferred by two months – Effect: Held: Such long adjournment after examination-in-chief, should never be given – This may affect the fairness of the trial and may even endanger, in a given case, the safety of the witness – As far as possible, the defence should be asked to cross examine the witness the same day or the following day – Only in very [2024] 7 S.C.R. 165 Surender Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) exceptional cases, and for reasons to be recorded, the cross examination shou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.