Date of Order:
July 27, 2023
Bench:
Justice Abhay S Oka
Justice Sanjay Karol
Parties:
Gursewak Singh
... Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. ... Respondents
SUBJECT
- Lance Naik was convicted for a punishable offense under IPC and Army Act, 1950, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed preconfirmation and petitions, but was rejected.
- The High Court transferred the case to the Armed Forces Tribunal, which confirmed the conviction and granted him remedy.
- The SC found the appellant guilty of culpable homicide for snatching the deceased’s rifle and firing a bullet with intent to cause bodily injury. The first part of Section 304 of IPC applies, allowing imprisonment for life or up to 10 years.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 302 IPC
OVERVIEW
- The appellant, Lance Naik, was convicted by the Court Martial for a punishable offense under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and dismissed from service.
- The appellant filed preconfirmation and additional petitions, which were rejected by the Major General Officer Commanding. The High Court transferred the case to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, which dismissed the petition and confirmed the conviction. The High Court granted the appellant liberty to avail remedy under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
- On December 4, 2004, appellant and deceased (Lance Naik Kala Singh) were posted to duty with 13 Field Regiment in Ferozepur cantonment. They were part of guard, led by Guard Commander Naik Amrik Singh.
- On December 4th, 2004, the deceased brought a bottle of country liquor, and the appellant, the deceased, and Guard Commander Naik Amrik Singh drank. An altercation ensued, and the deceased replaced gunner Gurtej Singh. The appellant fired a bullet at the deceased, and he was declared dead, leading to the former’s arrest.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The appellant’s counsel presented evidence and findings from Court Martial and Armed Forces Tribunal, arguing that the case will be governed by exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. The appellant argued that the incident was a sudden fight, and he fired only one bullet, not taking undue advantage.
- The learned counsel reviewed prosecution witnesses’ evidence, specifically PW-13 Naik Amrik Singh and PW-14 Gunner Gurtej Singh, to determine if the appellant committed an offense punishable under Section 304(Part II) of IPC.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- Senior counsel for the respondent argued that exception 4 to Section 300 won't apply in this case, as there can't be a sudden fight. The appellant acted cruelly and was on duty as a guard, but no indulgence was shown.
- The counsel representing the appellant cited rulings from this Court in the cases of Sukhdev Singh v. Delhi State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi)2 and Prakash Chand v. State of H.P.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The evidence shows the appellant, deceased, and PW-13 Naik Amrik Singh had a heated conversation about seniority, with PW-13 claiming the appellant was senior and designated second guard commander.
- In a disciplined force like Army, seniority is crucial. A dispute over seniority may have led to the appellant’s act in a heat of passion. The appellant snatched a rifle from the deceased and fired one bullet, indicating no intention to kill him.
- The appellant’s actions in the case were considered cruel, as he was a soldier on guard duty, had a fight over seniority, and fired only one round. There was no premeditation, and the appellant’s actions could not be considered cruel, as exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC applies when a man kills another. The appellant did not run away and assisted others in taking the deceased to a hospital.
- The appellant’s actions in the case are not considered cruel, as exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC applies when a man kills another. The appellant fired only one fatal bullet and did not runaway, and in our view, exception 4 was applicable in this case.
- The appellant is guilty of culpable homicide, not murder, for snatching the deceased’s rifle and firing a bullet, with the intent to cause bodily injury. The first part of Section 304 of IPC applies, allowing imprisonment for life or up to 10 years.
- The appellant’s conduct will be a mitigating factor in determining the sentence. The appellant has been incarcerated for 9 years and 3 months, and the sentence is an appropriate one.
- The appellant’s conviction for the punishable offense under Section 302 of IPC has been altered to Section 1 of Section 304 of IPC.
- The appellant faces imprisonment for the term he has already served, and his bail bonds will be cancelled.
