Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Police Constable for Murder Inside Police Station — Self-Defence Plea Rejected. Appellant's claim of accidental firing during scuffle found inconsistent with eyewitness accounts and ballistic evidence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 346
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, a police constable, was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for murdering the deceased and injuring PW-2 inside a police station in Delhi. The prosecution case was that the appellant, on duty, shot the deceased multiple times with his official carbine after a conversation. Eyewitnesses, including PW-2 (an injured head constable), testified that the appellant chased and fired at the deceased. The appellant claimed self-defence, alleging the deceased tried to snatch his weapon, but the court found this inconsistent with eyewitness accounts and ballistic evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, rejecting the pleas of self-defence and grave and sudden provocation, and affirmed the life sentence.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Self-Defence - Sections 302, 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appellant, a police constable, killed deceased inside police station with official carbine - Plea of self-defence rejected as eyewitnesses testified that appellant chased and fired at deceased, not vice versa - Held that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible eyewitnesses and forensic evidence (Paras 1-11).

B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Injured Witness - Section 302, 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - PW-2, an injured eyewitness, gave consistent testimony from FIR to trial - Her presence corroborated by medical evidence of bullet injuries - Held that injured witness testimony is highly reliable and corroborated by other witnesses (Paras 9-10).

C) Criminal Law - Murder - Grave and Sudden Provocation - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appellant claimed deceased had illicit relationship with his wife and threatened to kill him - However, no evidence of provocation at the time of incident - Held that the killing was premeditated and not on sudden provocation (Paras 7-9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant's conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC is sustainable in light of his plea of self-defence or, alternatively, grave and sudden provocation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.

Law Points

  • Self-defence
  • Grave and sudden provocation
  • Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
  • Murder
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 307 IPC
  • Section 313 CrPC
  • Eyewitness testimony
  • Injured witness
  • Forensic evidence
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (SC) (7) 31

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 597 OF 2012

2024-07-03

Sudhanshu Dhulia

Surender (police constable)

State (NCT of Delhi)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and attempt to murder.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal or reduction of sentence from life imprisonment.

Filing Reason

Appellant challenged the High Court order upholding his conviction and sentence by the Trial Court.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court convicted and sentenced appellant to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC. High Court dismissed appeal on 18.05.2011.

Issues

Whether the appellant's conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC is sustainable in light of his plea of self-defence? Whether the case falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to grave and sudden provocation?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that he acted in self-defence as the deceased tried to snatch his carbine, and alternatively, that it was a case of grave and sudden provocation due to the deceased's illicit relationship with his wife. Prosecution argued that eyewitnesses, including an injured witness, clearly saw the appellant chasing and firing at the deceased, and the forensic evidence supports the prosecution case.

Ratio Decidendi

The plea of self-defence is not available when the accused is the aggressor. Eyewitness testimony, especially of an injured witness, is highly reliable and corroborated by other evidence. The appellant's claim of accidental firing is inconsistent with the evidence showing he chased and fired at the deceased.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant before this Court has challenged the order of the High Court (dated 18.05.2011) which has dismissed his appeal while upholding his conviction and sentence by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. She is an extremely credible and trustworthy witness and the veracity of her statement and deposition establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Procedural History

FIR lodged on 30.06.2002. Chargesheet filed, case committed to Sessions. Trial Court convicted and sentenced appellant. High Court dismissed appeal on 18.05.2011. Appellant appealed to Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 307
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Possession Notice Under SARFAESI Act, Citing Alternative Remedy Before DRT. Petitioner directed to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Seeking Equal FRP for Non-Member Sugarcane Growers - Sugar Factory Cannot Discriminate Between Members and Non-Members in Payment of Fair and Remunerative Price. The court held that same price must be paid to al...