/2023 INSC 0648/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1791 OF 2023
No.15138812Y L/Nk Gursewak Singh              ... Appellant
versus
Union of India & Anr.                                 ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The  appellant  who  was  at the  relevant  time  Lance  Naik
in the Indian Army was convicted by the Court Martial for the
offence   punishable   under   Section   302   of   the   IPC   (for   short,
‘IPC’)   read   with   Section   69   of   the   Army   Act,   1950   (for   short,
‘the Army Act’).  The Court Martial sentenced the appellant to
suffer imprisonment for life.  The Court Martial also dismissed
the appellant from service.  Thereafter, the appellant filed pre­
confirmation   and   additional   pre­confirmation   petitions   which
were   rejected   by   the   Major   General   Officer   Commanding   by
his   order   dated   28 th
  September   2005.     Thereafter,   the
Criminal Appeal No.1791 of 2023 Page  1  of  102023 INSC 648

appellant   filed   a   petition   to   the   Chief   of   the   Army   Staff   who
rejected   the   same   by   his   order   dated   12 th
  June   2006.
Thereafter,   the   appellant   filed   a   Petition   under   Article   226
read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’)
before   the   Hon’ble   High   Court   of   Punjab   and   Haryana.     The
High   Court   transferred   the   matter   to   the   Armed   Forces
Tribunal,   Chandigarh.     By   the   impugned   judgment,   the
Armed   Forces   Tribunal,   Chandigarh   dismissed   the   Petition
and   confirmed   the   conviction   and   sentence   of   the   appellant.
Against   the   impugned   order   of   the   Tribunal,   the   Appellant
again   filed   a   Writ   Petition   before   the   Hon’ble   High   Court   of
Punjab and Haryana and by order dated 10.10.2018, the High
Court while dismissing the Writ Petition granted liberty to the
appellant   to   avail   remedy   under   Section   30   of   the   Armed
Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
2. On   4 th
  December   2004,   the   appellant   and   deceased
(Lance   Naik   Kala   Singh)   were   posted   for   duty   with   the   13
Field Regiment at Ferozepur Cantonment.   On the date of the
incident,   the   appellant   and   the   deceased   were   a   part   of   the
guard   headed   by   Guard   Commander   Naik   Amrik   Singh   (PW­
13).  Gunner Gurtej Singh (PW­14) was a sentry who was also
a part of the guard. 
3. It is alleged that on the night of 4 th
  December 2004, the
deceased   brought   a   bottle   of   country   liquor.     The   appellant,
the   deceased   and   the   Guard   Commander   Naik   Amrik   Singh
Criminal Appeal No.1791 of 2023 Page  2  of  10

consumed   liquor.     Thereafter,   there   was   an   altercation
between the appellant and the deceased on the issue of inter­
se seniority.   At that time, the Guard commander intervened.
The deceased replaced gunner Gurtej Singh (PW­14) for guard
duty outside the guard room.   Thereafter, the appellant went
out when there were heated arguments between the appellant
and   the   deceased   again   on   the   issue   of   seniority.     At   that
time,   the   appellant   snatched   the   rifle   from   the   hands   of   the
deceased   and   fired   one   bullet   at   the   deceased.   The   appellant
accompanied   others   for   taking   the   deceased   to   a   hospital
where   he   was   declared   dead.   The   appellant   was   arrested   on
the same day.
SUBMISSIONS
4. The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   has   taken   us
through   the   notes   of   evidence   and   findings   recorded   by   the
Court   Martial   as   well   as   by   the   Armed   Forces   Tribunal   (for
short, ‘the Tribunal’). His basic contention is that the case will
be   governed   by   exception   4   to   Section   300   of   IPC.   He
submitted that the incident was an outcome of a sudden fight
and   the   appellant   acted   in   a   heat   of   passion.   He   submitted
that   only   one   bullet   was   fired   by   the   appellant   though   there
were more bullets in the rifle at that time. His submission is
that   the   appellant   has   not   taken   any   undue   advantage   and
has   not   acted   in   a   cruel   manner.     The   learned   counsel   has
taken   us   through   the   evidence   of   the   material   prosecution
witnesses and in particular the evidence of PW­13 Naik Amrik
Criminal Appeal No.1791 of 2023 Page  3  of  10

Singh and PW­14 Gunner Gurtej Singh.  He would, therefore,
submit   that   this   was   a   case   of   an   offence   punishable   under
Section 304 (Part II) of IPC. He pointed out that the appellant
had undergone incarceration for a period of about 9 years and
3 months.
5. Learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent
pointed  out that  exception  4  to  Section  300  will  not  apply  in
this case, as it cannot be said that there was a sudden fight.
He submitted that the appellant has acted in a cruel manner.
He   submitted   that   the   conduct   of   the   appellant   has   to   be
judged in the light of the fact that he was on duty as a guard
and   was   a   member   of   a   disciplined   force.     He   would   submit
that no indulgence can be shown to the appellant. 
6. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant   relied
upon   decisions   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Prakash   Chand
v. State of H.P. 1
  and   Sukhdev Singh v. Delhi State (Govt.
of NCT of Delhi ) 2
. 
OUR VIEW
7. Hawaldar   Malkiat   Singh   is   PW­3   who   stated   that   the
appellant   was   not   possessing   any   weapon.   PW­8   Naib
Subedar Chandrika Prasad deposed that after receiving a call
from the operator he rushed to the place of the incident as he
was informed that a sentry has been shot.   He instructed the
nursing   assistant   to   move   quickly   and   he,   along   with   the
1   (2004) 11 SCC 381
2  (2003) 7 SCC 441
Criminal Appeal No.1791 of 2023 Page  4  of  10

nursing   assistant,   reached   the   spot   in   an   ambulance.     He
questioned the appellant.  At that time, the appellant told him
that   an   altercation   had   taken   place   and   he   had   fired   one
round.     The   witness   stated   in   the   cross­examination   that
while   replying   to   him,   the   accused   may   have   used   the   word
“galti” meaning thereby that he fired a bullet by mistake. 
8. PW­13   Naik   Amrik   Singh   was   posted   as   a   guard
commander along with the appellant and deceased.  He stated
that as the appellant was the senior most, he treated him as
second guard commander.   He submitted that he, along with
PW­14   Gunner   Gurtej   Singh   and   the   appellant,   were   having
dinner.   At that time, the deceased stood on duty outside the
guard   room   with   a   weapon   and   ammunition.     He   described
that   there   was   an   altercation   between   the   appellant   and   the
deceased  on  the  issue  of  seniority.   According  to   his  version,
when he was sitting in the guard room, he heard a sound of a
gunshot.   When he looked outside, the appellant was holding
a rifle.   According to him, the appellant informed him that he
had shot the deceased. PW­13 sought help. He tried to give a
ring  to headquarters  but  the  telephone  was  engaged. He told
PW­14   to   shout   for   help   from   nearby   posts.   PW­13   further
stated   that   he   along   with   the   appellant,   lifted   the   deceased
and after reaching the roadside, they laid the deceased on the
ground. By that time ambulance reached the place. He stated
that   Naib   Subedar   Chandrika   Prasad   (PW­8),   a   nursing
assistant   and   the   appellant   put   the   deceased   into   an
ambulance and all of them took the deceased to hospital.  We
Criminal Appeal No.1791 of 2023 Page  5  of  10

may   note   here   that   the   learned   prosecution   counsel   sought
permission   to   declare   PW­13   as   a   hostile   witness.     However,
the   Court   Martial   rejected   the   request   of   the   prosecution
counsel.     PW­13   stated   that   the   rifle   used   by   the   appellant
was lying in the snake pit.  There was an empty magazine and
a   filled   magazine.     There   were   19   rounds   in   the   filled
magazine.     The   witness   admitted   that   he,   along   with   the
deceased and the appellant, consumed liquor. But he claimed
that   it   was   one   and   half   hours   before   the   incident.     In   the
cross­examination,   the   witness   admitted   that   it   was   the
deceased   who   brought   the   liquor   bottle   without   consulting
him.     He   admitted   that   the   appellant   and   the   deceased   were
friends before the incident.   He stated that the appellant told
him   that   he   had   committed   a   mistake   and   he   had   fired   a
bullet   at   the   deceased.     While   answering   the   court   question,
the   witness   stated   that   he   had   not   seen   the   appellant   firing
from the rifle.  He saw the appellant immediately after hearing
the sound of firing.
9. PW­14   Gunner   Gurtej   Singh   stated   that   he   was   having
dinner  on   4 th
  December   2004   at  about  2015  hrs  with   PW   13
in the guard room.   After hearing the sound of a gunshot, he
got   up   and   saw   the   appellant   holding   a   rifle   and   standing
near   the   entrance   of   the   guard   room.     He   stated   that   the
appellant took out the magazine from the rifle and threw it on
a side. Thereafter, he made the rifle safe by cocking the rifle.
He  threw the rifle into  a snake  pit.    He stated  that when  the
appellant   was   questioned   by   him,   he   responded   by   stating
Criminal Appeal No.1791 of 2023 Page  6  of  10

that   he   had   committed   a   mistake.     He   stated   that   earlier   he
had   heard   the   appellant   asking   the   deceased   to   bring   water
for him.   The deceased refused to get water by saying that he
was senior to the appellant.
10. What   emerges   from   the   evidence   is   that   the   appellant,
the   deceased   and   PW­13   Naik   Amrik   Singh   had   consumed
liquor   at  the   time  of  dinner.  There  was  a  heated  exchange  of
words between the appellant and the deceased on the issue of
seniority.   In   fact,   PW­13   stated   in   his   examination­in­chief
that   the   appellant   was   senior   most   after   him   and   therefore,
the   appellant   was   designated   as   second   guard   commander.
He stated that he treated the appellant   to be   senior.  
11. The appellant did not have a weapon at that time and he
used   the   weapon   of   the   deceased.     Out   of   20   rounds   in   the
magazine of the rifle, he fired only one bullet.  Moreover, after
the   incident,   the   appellant   did   not   run   away   and   he   along
with   PW   ­13   lifted   the   deceased   and   laid   him   by   the   side   of
the   road.     He   frankly   disclosed   his   version   of   the   incident   to
PWs   13   and   14.   The   appellant   along   with   two   other   army
men,   lifted   the   deceased   for   putting   him   in   the   ambulance
and   he   accompanied   the   deceased   to   the   hospital.     These
facts   brought   on   record   show   that   there   was   no   pre­
meditation   on   the   part   of   the   appellant.     Both   the   appellant
and   the   deceased   had   consumed   liquor.     There   was   a   fight
between him and the deceased over the issue of seniority.   In
fact,   when  the   appellant  told  the   deceased   to   bring  water   for
Criminal Appeal No.1791 of 2023 Page  7  of  10

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 pre­
meditation   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.  There was a sudden
fight over seniority when the appellant and the deceased had
consumed   liquor.     There   was   no   premeditation.     The
appellant,   in   the   facts   of   the   case,   cannot   be   said   to   have
acted   in   such   a   cruel   manner   which   will   deprive   him   of   the
benefit   of   exception   4   to   Section   300   of   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 we assign a meaning to the word ‘cruel’ used in exception 4
Criminal Appeal No.1791 of 2023 Page  8  of  10

which   is   used   in   common   parlance,   in   no   case   exception   4
can be applied.   Therefore, in our view, 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   of   IPC   will   apply   in   this   case.     Under   the   first   part   of
Section   304   of   IPC,   an   accused   can   be   punished   with
imprisonment  for   life  or   with  imprisonment  for  a  term  which
may extend to 10 years.
12. Prosecution   examined   PW­5   Naik   Parwinder   Singh.   In
the   cross­examination,   he   stated   that   he   knew   the   appellant
since   June   2003   and   was   good   in   terms   of   discipline.     He
stated that the appellant did not misbehave with the deceased
earlier.   PW­10   Lt.Col   Purty   admitted   that   the   accused   had   a
‘nice   reputation’.   The   conduct   of   the   appellant   will   be   a
mitigating   factor   for   determining   the   sentence.     It   is   not   in
dispute   that  the   appellant  has  undergone   incarceration  for   a
period   of   9   years   and   approximately   3   months.     Taking   an
overall   view   of   the   evidence   on   record,   the   sentence   already
undergone by the appellant will be an appropriate sentence in
the facts of the case. 
13. Therefore,   the   appeal   is   partly   allowed.     The   conviction
of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302
Criminal Appeal No.1791 of 2023 Page  9  of  10

of IPC is altered to the one under Part 1 of Section 304 of IPC.
The   appellant   is   sentenced   to   undergo   imprisonment   for   the
term   which   he   has   already   undergone.     The   appellant   was
enlarged   on   bail   by   this   Court   on   8 th
  April   2020.   The   bail
bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled. 
…………………….J.
      (Abhay S. Oka)
…………………….J.
        (Sanjay Karol)
New Delhi;
July 27, 2023.
Criminal Appeal No.1791 of 2023 Page  10  of  10