COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
FACTS:
On 5th November 2010, during Diwali celebrations, the accused-respondent, a constable posted as a guard at the Company Headquarters of the 2nd Indian Reserve Battalion in Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, became agitated over the quality of food served in the mess. After completing his duty at 9 p.m., he argued with his colleagues and, in a fit of rage, threatened to take immediate action. As fireworks were being burst nearby, he grew more aggressive and opened fire with his service AK-47 rifle at his fellow constables. Constable Sanjeet Kumar (PW-2) sustained bullet injuries in both thighs and was hospitalized until 8th December 2010. Despite being overpowered by colleagues and disarmed, the accused had already fired multiple rounds, and seven empty cartridges were later recovered from the scene.
Following the incident, a case was registered, and the accused was charged under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and two years under the Arms Act. However, on appeal, the High Court downgraded the offence from attempt to murder to causing grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC, holding that the evidence did not conclusively prove the accused had the intention or knowledge required to cause death. The High Court sentenced him to the term already undergone, which led the State of Himachal Pradesh to challenge this decision before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
The key issues before the Court were whether the High Court was right in reducing the charge from Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC, despite evidence of the accused firing an AK-47 at colleagues with intent, and whether reducing the sentence to time already served was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the accused’s role in a disciplined force.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 14.07.2014 and 28.07.2014, which had acquitted the accused under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and restored the Trial Court’s conviction under these sections. However, considering the time elapsed, the accused's position in a disciplined force, and the emotional context of the incident, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone—approximately 1 year and 5 months—rather than the original 7 years of rigorous imprisonment.
The Court emphasized that the use of a deadly weapon like an AK-47 by a trained constable, and the intentional act of firing multiple rounds at colleagues, clearly established the intention or knowledge required to attract the offence under Section 307 IPC. The nature and number of injuries, though not life-threatening, were grievous and sufficient to infer the requisite mens rea. The Court also cited relevant case law affirming that grievous or life-threatening injuries are not a prerequisite for conviction under Section 307 IPC; intention or knowledge to cause death is sufficient.
While acknowledging the severity of the offence, the Court exercised discretion in sentencing due to mitigating factors: the incident occurred in 2010, it stemmed from a moment of rage during a festival, and the accused had already served over a year in custody. Additionally, the Court recognized that the accused was part of a disciplined force and acted with a predetermined mind, yet balanced justice by reducing the sentence, ensuring both deterrence and fairness.
ANALYSIS:
This case highlights the critical legal interpretation of Section 307 IPC, which deals with the offence of attempt to murder, particularly in situations involving armed personnel misusing service weapons. The Supreme Court carefully examined whether the accused's act of firing an AK-47 at colleagues, following an argument and fueled by anger, met the threshold of "intention or knowledge" to cause death. Despite the High Court’s attempt to downgrade the offence to grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC, the Supreme Court reinstated the graver charge, emphasizing that the accused’s knowledge of the lethality of the weapon, combined with the deliberate act of firing multiple shots, was sufficient to fulfill the legal requirements of Section 307 IPC, regardless of whether the injuries were life-threatening.
The Court’s nuanced approach to sentencing reflects a balance between legal rigor and contextual sensitivity. Recognizing the passage of time since the offence, the festival setting, and the accused’s prior service in a disciplined force, the Supreme Court exercised leniency by reducing the sentence to the time already served. This decision demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to consider rehabilitative justice while upholding accountability for violent misuse of official weapons. It reinforces that while intent and weapon misuse are heavily weighted in determining guilt, sentencing can be moderated when mitigating factors and fairness in the broader sense of justice are present.
info@adhwaitha.com
