Court’s Decision
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea in a case involving a fatal shooting incident, holding that the allegations clearly attracted Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and not Section 304, as contended by the petitioner. The Court observed, “Allegation, if proved, would attract the penal provision of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.”
The Court found no grounds for granting anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition.
Facts
The petitioner was accused of a fatal shooting incident in which the victim sustained a gunshot wound to the head from close range. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, was responsible for the death. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail on the ground that the case fell under Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) rather than Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code.
The medical report submitted in the case revealed that the victim died due to a gunshot wound to the head. There were clear injury marks, and the doctor’s opinion supported the conclusion that the shot was fired from close range. The investigation was still at a preliminary stage.
Issues
- Whether the act allegedly committed by the petitioner would attract Section 302 (murder) or Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC.
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the seriousness of the allegation.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the nature of the incident suggested a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC. It was submitted that there was no premeditation or intention to kill, and that the firing may have been accidental or lacked the required mens rea for murder. The petitioner relied on this to seek anticipatory bail, arguing that custodial interrogation was not required and he was willing to cooperate with the investigation.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the anticipatory bail plea, highlighting that the medical evidence established that the firearm injury was sustained from close range, directly to the head, indicating clear intention to kill. It was submitted that Section 302 IPC was squarely attracted based on the facts and medical findings. The prosecution also emphasized that the investigation was at a crucial stage and custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary to ascertain further details.
Analysis of the Law
The Court relied on the gravity of the offence, nature of the injury, and medical evidence on record. The observation that the gunshot was fired at close range to the victim’s head was treated as a vital piece of evidence to infer the petitioner’s intention. The Court reiterated that where an act is committed with such fatal consequences, particularly when involving firearm injuries from close range, the presumption of intention to kill becomes strong. Therefore, Section 302 IPC becomes applicable rather than Section 304 IPC.
Precedent Analysis
No specific precedents were cited in the order, but the Court’s reasoning implicitly aligns with well-established principles laid down by the Supreme Court that intention can be inferred from the nature and location of the injuries, particularly in cases involving firearms and targeted attacks. In earlier decisions, courts have consistently held that gunshot injuries to vital parts from close range signify a clear intention to kill.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found the medical report to be crucial in determining the applicability of Section 302 IPC. The fact that the shot was fired from close range directly at the victim’s head, combined with the seriousness of the injuries and the death that followed, ruled out the possibility of invoking Section 304. The Court observed that “the nature of injury being a gunshot wound on the head and the preliminary report of the doctor suggesting that the gunshot was fired from a close range indicates an intention to kill.”
This, according to the Court, left no room for the petitioner’s plea that the offence be treated under Section 304. Further, the Court held that this was not a case where anticipatory bail could be granted in the interest of justice or for ensuring cooperation with the investigation.
Conclusion
The anticipatory bail application was dismissed, with the Court making it clear that the facts alleged against the petitioner, if proved, would squarely fall under the scope of Section 302 IPC. The Court underscored that the seriousness of the offence, the nature of the injuries, and the close-range firing militated against granting the relief sought.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that courts are reluctant to grant anticipatory bail in serious offences like murder, especially where there is prima facie evidence suggesting intentional killing. It also underscores the importance of medical evidence in bail hearings. The decision may guide subordinate courts in denying interim protection where facts clearly establish intention and grievous injury leading to death.
Judgments Referred
While no specific precedents were cited, the order is aligned with established jurisprudence where courts consider the nature of the injuries and medical evidence to determine the intention and applicability of penal provisions.
FAQs
1. Can close-range gunshot wounds imply intention to kill?
Yes. Courts consider gunshot wounds to vital parts of the body from close range as indicative of intent to kill, attracting Section 302 IPC.
2. Is anticipatory bail allowed in murder cases under Section 302 IPC?
Generally no, unless exceptional circumstances are shown. The gravity and evidence against the accused weigh heavily against such relief.
3. Can an accused argue that an act is culpable homicide instead of murder to get anticipatory bail?
Yes, but the court will examine the medical and factual matrix. If the evidence clearly shows intention to kill, such an argument will not succeed.
