/2022 INSC 0622/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2390 OF 2010
Arvind Kumar               … Appellant
 
versus
State of NCT, Delhi           … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. By   this   appeal,   the   appellant­accused   has   taken   an
exception   to   the   order   of   his   conviction   passed   by   the
Sessions Court for the offence punishable under  Section 302
of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   (for   short,   “IPC”).     The   learned
Sessions   Judge   held   that   the   case   of   the   appellant­accused
was   covered   by   “thirdly”   in   Section   300   of   IPC.   The   learned
Sessions  Judge   held  that  the  appellant­accused  has  failed   to
bring the case within the protective umbrella of the exception
4   to   Section   300   of   IPC.     By   the   impugned   judgment   of   the
Criminal Appeal No.2390 of 2010 Page  1  of  162023 INSC 622

High   Court,   the   conviction   of   the   appellant   has   been
confirmed.     The   Trial   Court   sentenced   the   appellant   to
undergo   a   life   sentence.       By   the   time   the   appellant   was
released   on   bail   by   this   Court   by   the   order   dated   27 th
November   2017,   the   appellant   had   undergone   incarceration
for a period of about 8 years and 11 months.
2. The   case   of   the   prosecution   is   that   one   Shashi   Bala
(PW­12)   who   was   a   Sub­inspector   of   Police   was   posted   as   a
Duty   Officer   in   I.P.   Estate   Police   Station,   Delhi   on   28 th
December 1994.   One constable Mohd. Rashid (the deceased)
was   on   duty   as   “Munshi­Roznamacha”.     At   about   5.45   pm,
the  deceased  came   to  the   reporting  room   and  started   talking
on   the   official   telephone   of   the   Police   Station.     After   noticing
that  the   deceased   was   talking   on  the   phone   for   about  5  to  7
minutes,   Shashi   Bala   (PW­12)   advised   him   not   to   keep   the
official   telephone   engaged   as   the   Police   Station   may   receive
some   urgent   calls.     The   case   of   the   prosecution   is   that   the
deceased   did   not   pay   heed   to   the   advice   of   PW­12.     The
appellant   was   posted   as   a   guard   at   the   Police   Station.     The
appellant was carrying a Semi­Automatic Fire (SAF) – carbine.
PW­12 Shashi Bala, around 5.55 pm, requested the appellant
to   ask   the   deceased   to   desist   from   continuing   with   his
conversation   on   the   telephone.     Therefore,   the   appellant
entered   the   duty   room   where   the   deceased   was   sitting   and
talking   on   the   phone.   The   appellant   put   his   hand   on   the
shoulder   of   the   deceased   and   advised   him   to   end   the   call.
The   initial   case   of   the   prosecution   was   that   the   deceased
Criminal Appeal No.2390 of 2010 Page  2  of  16

playfully pushed the appellant while holding the SAF carbine
of   the   appellant.   The   appellant   tried   to   extricate   his   SAF.
During the scuffle, SAF got entangled in the chain attached to
the   appellant’s   belt   which   led   to   the   accidental   firing   of   five
rounds   from   the   said   automatic   weapon.     The   deceased   got
five   rounds   of   bullets   in   his   neck.   The   police   personnel
present   rushed   the   deceased   to   a   hospital   where   he   was
declared dead.
3. Initially,   based   on   a   statement   of   Shashi   Bala   (PW­12),
an   offence   under   Section   304A   was   registered   against   the
appellant.    On   the  next  day  of  the   incident,   the   father   of   the
deceased submitted a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner
of   Police   and   to   the   Commissioner   of   Police,   Delhi.   Based   on
the   said   complaints,   the   investigation   was   transferred   to   the
Crime   Branch.   According   to   the   prosecution,   the   opinion   of
the expert ruled out any possibility of accidental fire from SAF
carbine.     It   was   also   revealed   by   the   father   of   the   deceased
that   prior   to   the   incident,   the   deceased   had   caught   the
accused   and   Shashi   Bala   in   objectionable   condition.
Therefore,   Shashi   Bala   and   the   appellant   got   annoyed   and
they   threatened   to   kill   the   deceased.     On   the   basis   of   the
investigation carried out by the Crime Branch, Section 302 of
IPC was applied while filing the chargesheet. 
4. We   must   record   here   that   the   High   Court   has
disbelieved   the   prosecution’s   case   about   the   existence   of
motive.     The   prosecution’s   case   was   that   the   deceased   had
Criminal Appeal No.2390 of 2010 Page  3  of  16

seen the appellant and PW­12 in a compromising position and
therefore,   they   held   a   grudge   against   the   deceased.   After
considering   the   evidence   of   PW­3,   PW­18   and   PW­22   on   the
alleged   motive   of   the   crime,   the   High   Court   came   to   the
conclusion  that  motive  was  not established.     The High  Court
relied upon  the testimony  of PW­13 Karim Baksh who stated
that   he   heard   the   cry   of   the   deceased   “Mujhe   Bachao”   and
sound of the  firing of SAF.   The witness stated that when he
saw   the   deceased   lying   on   the   chair   with   bullet   injuries,   the
appellant   was   telling   PW­12   Shashi   Bala   in   Hindi   “ Madam
aapne yeh kya karva diya, Mere to bache barbad ho jayenge".
According   to   the   witness,   Shashi   Bala   responded   by   telling
the   accused   that:   "tum   phikr   mat   karo   may   bhi   tumhare
saath hu, court tak tumhara saath dungi". The Court applied
the   doctrine   of   res   gestae   covered   by   Section   6   of   the   Indian
Evidence Act 1872 (for short, “the Evidence Act”).  
RIVAL SUBMISSIONS
5. The   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant
has   taken   us   through   the   notes   of   evidence   of   the   relevant
witnesses.   He   submitted   that   taking   the   prosecution   case   as
correct,   in   the   scuffle   between   the   deceased   and   the
appellant,   the   SAF   got   entangled   in   the   chain   of   the
appellant’s   belt   which   resulted   in   the   accidental   firing   of
bullets   from   the   SAF.     He   submitted   that   once   the   motive   is
discarded,   the   prosecution’s   case   based   on   circumstantial
evidence  must fail.    He  urged that no offence was committed
Criminal Appeal No.2390 of 2010 Page  4  of  16

by the appellant in view of Section 80 of IPC as the death was
as a result of purely an accident. 
6. In the alternative, he submitted that at the highest, the
second   part   of   Section   304   of   IPC   was   applicable.     He
submitted that the Courts below have committed an error by
invoking Section 302.
7. Learned   counsel   for   the   State   supported   the   impugned
judgments.     Learned   counsel   pointed   out   that   the   reports   of
the ballistic expert and ocular  evidence clearly show that the
appellant certainly had knowledge that the use of SAF carbine
may cause death.  
CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS
8. There is no dispute that the deceased was the victim of
five   bullets   fired   from   the   SAF   carbine   held   by   the   appellant
and that the bullet injuries caused his death.  The Trial Court
and  the  High  Court  held  that  the  defence  of  accidental  firing
cannot   be   accepted   and   that   the   act   of   firing   bullets   by   the
appellant   was   intentional.     The   Court   rejected   the   defence   of
the   accident   pleaded   by   the   appellant   by   taking   recourse   to
Section 80 of IPC. 
9. The   motive   alleged   by   the   prosecution   was   that   the
deceased   had   seen   PW­12   Shashi   Bala   (Sub­Inspector)   and
the   appellant   in   a   compromising   position.   The   allegation   is
that   as   the   deceased   had   seen   both   in   a   compromising
position,   PW­12   and   the   appellant   were   annoyed   with   him
Criminal Appeal No.2390 of 2010 Page  5  of  16

and thus, threatened to kill him. It is not necessary for us to
go into the issue of the existence of motive as the High Court
in   paragraph   34   of   the   impugned   judgment   has   recorded   a
finding after considering the testimony of PW­3 Nazir Ahmed,
PW­18 Sub­Inspector Ram Singh and PW­22 Shaukat Ali, the
father   of   the   deceased   that   the   case   of   the   prosecution
regarding the existence of motive does not inspire confidence.
Therefore,   we   will   have   to   proceed   on   the   footing   that   the
motive   was   not   proved.   Therefore,   the   failure   to   prove   the
existence   of   the   motive   is   one   of   the   circumstances   which
makes the prosecution case regarding intentional firing by the
appellant not worthy of acceptance.   
10. There   are   two   witnesses   who   claim   that   they   were
eyewitnesses to  the incident. PW­12 Shashi Bala is one such
witness who stated in her examination­in­chief that:­ 
“On   28.12.94   I   was   posted   as   DO   in   PS
I.P.   Estate   with   duty   hours   from   12.00
noon  to  6.00 p.m.  On  that  day  deceased
ct.Md.Rashid   was   also   discharging   duty
as   Roznamcha   Munshi   till   8.00   p.m.   At
about   5.45   p.m.   deceased   came   to   my
office   i.e   reporting   room   and   started
making   phone   call   while   sitting   chair
lying in front of me leaving a table which
was   lying   between   in   two   tables.   He
continued   the   phone   call   for   nearly   5/7
minutes.   I   asked   the   deceased   not   to
continue   the   talks   and   make   the
telephone   engaged   as   some   urgent   call
may be recd. in the PS. But the deceased
did not take it seriously but he continued
making   the   phone   call.   At   about   5.55
Criminal Appeal No.2390 of 2010 Page  6  of  16

p.m.   I   asked   Santri   Ct.Arvind   i.e
accused   present   in  the   court   today   to
restrained   the   deceased   from   talking
the   phone   call   for   such   a   long   period.
Accd. asked  the  deceased  to leave the
telephone   by   putting   his   hand   on   the
shoulder. Taking it as a joke deceased
caught   hold   the   SAF   of   accused   and
accd.   tried   to   take   back   his   SAF.
During   this   scuffle   the   SAF   of   the
accused   got   entangled   in   the   chain
tied   with   the   belt   of   accused   and
during   this   course   the   fire   is   opened
from   accused   which   hit   the   deceased
on   his   neck   and   chest   and   blood
started   coming   out   from   his   wound .   I
got   sent   the   decd.   to   JPS   hospital   who
was   declared   dead   by   the   concerned
Doctor.”
(emphasis added)
In   the   examination­in­chief,   she   stated   that   the   father   of   the
deceased   after   one   month   of   the   incident   threatened   to   kill
her   as   she   was   not   willing   to   change   her   version.     It   is
pertinent to note that PW­12 Shashi Bala was not declared as
a hostile witness.
11. The only other witness apart from PW­12 who claims to
be   an   eyewitness   is   PW­25   Satbir   Singh   Sherawat.     He   was
not   a   member   of   the   police   force,   but   he   was   a   part   of   CISF
and was posted on internal security duty at the police station.
His version is also important to be noted which reads thus:
“I  was   present at PS  I.P.  Estate  at  about  6
p.m. I saw that one constable posted there
at PS  I.P.  Estate  and  was  sitting   on  chair
Criminal Appeal No.2390 of 2010 Page  7  of  16

at   Control   Room   in   front   of   Duty   Officer
and   he   was   making   call   from   the
telephone   kept   in   control   room   and   I   was
waiting to make a call from the said phone
for giving my O.K report. I kept on waiting
in   the   gallery   on   the   door   of   the   control
room   and   in   the   meantime   the   duty
officer   asked   the   said   constable   not   to
leave   the   busy   so   long,   as   it   was   an
official phone. He did not pay any heed
to   the   request   of   the   said   duty   officer.
The duty officer requested the Santri to
ask   the   said   constable   to   leave   the
phone for other person. The Santri also
went   there   and   requested   the   said
constable   for   leaving   the   said   phone
but   he   did   not   pay   any   heed   to   his
request  also.  The  Santri  caught   him  by
his   right   arm   as   he   was   holding   the
receiver   of   the   phone   by   his   left   hand
and he casually pushed the Santri. The
Santri again requested him to leave the
phone   and   in   response   the   said
constable   making   the   call   caught   the
SAF of the Santri and while making fun
with   each   other,   pushed   him   and   at
that   time   accidental   fire   took   place
from the said SAF and five rounds from
the said SAF hit the person making the
phone   call.   WSI   Shashi   Bala   was   also
present   there   and   she   had   also
requested   the   constable   making   the
phone   not   to   touch   the   SAF   as   it   was
dangerous,   prior   to   the   incident.   The
Santri   at   that   time   was   the   accused
present   in   the   Court   whose   name   was
known   as   Arvind   (present   in   the   Court
today,   correctly   identified   by   the
Criminal Appeal No.2390 of 2010 Page  8  of  16

witness).   A   public   person   was   also
present there but I do not know his name.
I   did   not  know  the  name   of   the  constable
who   was   making   the   call   after   the   bullet
hit   him   at   his   chest   and   he   was   badly
injured   in   the   incident   and   after   hearing
the   noise   of   the   bullet   all   the   staff   of   the
PS   gathered   there.   The   SAF   was   kept   on
the   table   after   the   incident   and   I   was   not
aware  as  to   how  many   rounds  were  there
in the magazine of the same and the same
were   not   taking   out   in   my   present.   No
conversation   took   place   between   the
accused   and   WSI   Shashi   Bala   in   my
presence.”
(emphasis added)
We may note here that even this witness was not declared as
hostile.
12. Thus,   the   version   of   PW­12   and   PW­25   who   were
claiming   to   be   the   eyewitnesses   completely   supports   the
defence   of   the   appellant   of   accidental   firing   and   in   any   case,
they   have   not   deposed   that   the   appellant   intentionally   fired
bullets   at   the   deceased.   PW­22,   the   father   of   the   deceased,
who   was   not   an   eyewitness,   deposed   in   support   of   the   case
that the appellant intentionally opened fire. But his testimony
on motive has been disbelieved by the High Court. Moreover,
admittedly,   his   second   statement   in   which   the   aforesaid
allegation was made, was recorded three to four months after
the   incident.   In   his   earlier   statement   recorded   by   the   police
after the incident, this version was not found as can be seen
from his cross­examination. 
Criminal Appeal No.2390 of 2010 Page  9  of  16

13. There are four reports/opinions of the ballistic expert on
record.     Two   reports   mention   that   the   bullets   were   shot   at   a
close  distance   about which  there  is  no  dispute.    Pursuant  to
the queries made by the investigating officer, a second report
dated 18 th
 August 1995 was submitted by the ballistic expert,
Smt. Asha Dhir. Clauses 4 and 5 of the said report read thus: 
“4 . The   9   mm   carbine   marked   A   under
reference received in the laboratory having
change   lever   in   'A'   (i.e.   auto)   position,   it
could   fire   if   the   firearm   would   have   been
cocked   and   the   trigger   was   pressed   and
could go on firing as long as having trigger
remain pressed. 
5. The   firearm   under   reference   can   be
cocked   by   entangling   with   the   chain,
provided,   if   the   change   lever   is   not   at
'S'   (safety)   position.   If   the   trigger   is
pressed   in   cocked   condition,   it   will
fire. ”
(emphasis added)
There   is   also   an   opinion   dated   22 nd
  December   1995   of   the
same   expert   which   records   that   the   possibility   of
simultaneously   cocking   and   pressing   the   trigger   of   SAF   after
entangling   with   a   chain   is   ruled   out.   If   this   opinion   is   read
with the opinion dated 18 th
 August 1995, it is apparent that if
the  change  lever   is   not  in   safety  position,   the   firearm   can   be
cocked by entangling with a chain. 
Criminal Appeal No.2390 of 2010 Page  10  of  16

14. Going   by   the   evidence   of   prosecution   witnesses,   it   will
have   to   be   held   that   the   SAF   got   entangled   with   the   chain
attached to the belt of the appellant. Considering the opinion
of   the   expert,   it   is   obvious   that   when   the   incident   occurred,
the   change   lever   was   not   kept   in   a   safety   position   by   the
appellant and therefore, SAF got cocked which resulted in the
firing   of   five   bullets.   The   appellant   must   take   the   blame   for
not   taking   the   elementary   precaution   of   keeping   the   change
lever in the safety position. 
15. Having carefully perused the statement of the appellant
recorded   under   Section   313   of   CrPC,   the   case   of   the
prosecution that he intentionally opened fire by aiming at the
deceased was not put to the appellant.  
16. What   remains   is   the   statement   attributed   to   the
appellant   and   the   response   of   PW­12   to   the   appellant’s
statement.  These statements were read in evidence in view of
Section   6   of   the   Evidence   Act.   According   to   the   prosecution
witness   PW­13­Karim   Baksh,   after   the   firing   was   heard,   the
appellant   was   heard   telling   PW­12   that   “Madam   aapne   yeh
kya   karva   diya,   Mere   to   bache   barbad   ho   jayenge".   Reply   of
Shashi   Bala   was:   "tum   phikr   mat   karo   may   bhi   tumhare
saath   hu,   court   tak   tumhara   saath   dungi".   The   only   other
witness   who   deposed   about   such   statements   is   PW­5   Zahir
Ahmed. According to him, he heard the appellant telling PW­
12 “Madam, apane isko marva diya ab mera kya hoga”. Both
the   witnesses   have   stated   that   they   heard   the   cry   “Mujhe
Criminal Appeal No.2390 of 2010 Page  11  of  16

bachao”.   Surprisingly,   PW­25,   who   claims   to   have   seen   the
incident has not deposed about any such statements made by
the appellant, PW­12 and the deceased. PW­5 claims to have
attended the funeral of the deceased. He admitted that as per
the   instructions   of   the   father   of   the   deceased,   he   met   an
inspector  of  the  Crime  Branch  two   months  after  the  incident
when   his   statement   was   recorded.   Till   that   time,   he   did   not
report   anything   to   the   police   about   what   he   heard.   PW­13
stated   that   PW­6,   PW­17   and   certain   other   persons   were
present   when   he   heard   the   accused   making   aforesaid
statements.   Both   PW­6   and   PW­17   did   not   support   the
prosecution. The others who were present according to PW­13
were not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the version
of   the   prosecution   about   the   appellant   and   PW­12   making
such statements does not inspire confidence.  
17. We   will   also   examine   the   effect   of   such   statements
assuming that the same were really made.   These statements
were   allegedly   made   immediately   after   the   incident.   The
statements   do   have   a   connection   with   the   incident.   The
statements were allegedly made spontaneously. Therefore, the
Courts   have   treated   the   statements   as   relevant   by   invoking
the   doctrine   of   res   gestae   incorporated   in   Section   6   of   the
Indian   Evidence   Act.   We   have   held   that   the   theory   of   the
prosecution that the appellant fired intentionally has not been
established.   The   appellant   was   instructed   by   PW­12   to   go   to
the   deceased   and   to   prevent   him   from   continuing   the   use   of
the telephone. Therefore, he went near the deceased. It is the
Criminal Appeal No.2390 of 2010 Page  12  of  16

reaction   or   the   action   of   the   deceased   which   resulted   in   the
SAF   getting   entangled   with   the   chain   attached   to   the
appellant’s   belt;   which   led   to   the   accidental   fire   from   SAF.
Therefore,   the   accused   spontaneously   reacted   by   telling   PW­
12 what she has got done from him. While implementing the
direction issued by PW­12, the accidental  fire took place and
that is how the appellant became responsible for the death. It
is in this context that the reaction of the appellant has to be
understood. By those words, he has blamed the PW­12.   The
statement attributed to PW­12 means that she would support
the   appellant   before   the   Court   by   telling   the   truth.   If   the
theory   of   accidental   firing   is   accepted,   the   interpretation   of
the   aforesaid   statements   as   made   by   us   becomes   a   possible
interpretation   which   is   consistent   with   normal   human
conduct.
18. Section   6   of   the   Evidence   Act   and   illustration   (a)   below
Section 6 read thus: 
“ 6.   Relevancy   of   facts   forming   part   of
same transaction .––Facts which, though
not in issue, are so connected with a fact
in   issue   as   to   form   part   of   the   same
transaction,   are   relevant,   whether   they
occurred   at   the   same   time   and   place   or
at different times and places. 
Illustrations
(a) A   is   accused   of   the   murder   of   B   by
beating   him.   Whatever   was   said   or
done  by  A  or  B  or  the  by­standers  at
the   beating,   or   so   shortly   before   or
Criminal Appeal No.2390 of 2010 Page  13  of  16

after   it   as   to   form   part   of   the
transaction, is a relevant fact.
(b) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(c) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(d) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..”
PW­5   and   PW­13   have   attributed   the   aforesaid   statements
mentioned in paragraph 16 above to the appellant and PW­12
Shashi  Bala which  were  immediately  made  after  the  incident
of firing.  The alleged statements are certainly connected with
the   fact   in   issue,   namely,   the   alleged   act   of   the   appellant   of
killing the deceased.  Therefore, assuming that the statements
attributed to the appellant and PW­12 were in fact made, the
conduct   of   the   appellant   of   making   the   said   statement
becomes   relevant   in   view   of   Section   6.     Section   5   of   the
Evidence   Act   provides   that   evidence   may   be   given   in   a
proceeding   of   the   existence   or   non­existence   of   every   fact   in
issue   and   of   such   other   facts   which   are   declared   to   be
relevant   under   the   provisions   of   Chapter   II   of   the   Evidence
Act,   1872.     Section   6   is   applicable   to   facts   which   are   not   in
issue.  Such facts become relevant only when the same satisfy
the tests laid down in Section 6.   Hence, the statement of an
accused to which Section 6 is applicable cannot be treated as
a   confession   of   guilt.   The   statement   becomes   relevant   which
can   be   read   in   evidence   as   it   shows   the   conduct   of   the
appellant immediately after the incident.   In any case, in the
facts   of   the   case,   we   have   held   that   the   version   of   the   two
Criminal Appeal No.2390 of 2010 Page  14  of  16

witnesses who have deposed about the appellant making such
statement does not inspire confidence. 
19. The   prosecution   has   failed   to   prove   that   the   appellant
had either any intention of causing the death of the deceased
or the intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased
which was likely to cause his death. Assuming that when the
appellant   approached   the   deceased   to   stop   him   from   using
the telephone, he was aware that the change lever was not in
a   safety   position,   it   is   not   possible   to   attribute   knowledge   to
him that by his failure to keep SAF in the safety position, he
was likely to cause the death of the deceased. The knowledge
of the possibility of the deceased who was himself a policeman
pulling SAF  carbine cannot be attributed to the appellant. In
fact, the appellant could not have imagined that the deceased
would   do   anything   like   this.     Thus,   by   no   stretch   of   the
imagination,   it   is   a   case   of   culpable   homicide   as   defined
under Section 299 of IPC as the existence of none of the three
ingredients   incorporated   therein   was   proved   by   the
prosecution. 
20. However,   there   is   a   failure   on   the   part   of   the   appellant
who was holding a sophisticated automatic weapon to ensure
that   the   change   lever   was   always   kept   in   a   safety   position.
This   was   the   minimum   care   that   he   was   expected   to   take
while   he   approached   the   deceased.     Thus,   there   is   gross
negligence on the part of the appellant which led to  a loss of
human   life.   Due   to   his   rash   and   negligent   act,   the   deceased
Criminal Appeal No.2390 of 2010 Page  15  of  16

lost   his   life.     Therefore,   the   appellant   is   guilty   of   a   lesser
offence   punishable   under   Section   304A   of   IPC   for   which   the
maximum   sentence   is   imprisonment   for   two   years.     The
appellant has undergone a sentence of more than eight years.
21. Hence,   the   appeal   is   partly   allowed.     The   conviction   of
the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside and he
is   held   guilty   of   committing   the   offence   punishable   under
Section   304A   of   IPC.   The   appellant   has   undergone   the
maximum   sentence   prescribed   for   the   said   offence.     Hence,
his detention in prison is no longer required.   Hence, his bail
bonds are cancelled. 
……..….……………J.  
(Abhay S. Oka)  
 
 
……...………………J.  
         (Rajesh Bindal)  
New Delhi;  
July 17, 2023. 
Criminal Appeal No.2390 of 2010 Page  16  of  16