“Mere denial of leave can never justify an attack on superiors; the deliberate act of the accused, proven through consistent eyewitness accounts and medical evidence, establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
Court’s Decision
The Tripura High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the accused and affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000, imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sepahijala Judicial District, for shooting and killing Subedar Markhasin Jamatia and injuring Nayek Subedar Kiran Kumar Jamatia with his service rifle following a dispute over leave.
The Court held the act was deliberate, intentional, and not provoked by any grave or sudden provocation, and found the defence plea of accidental discharge during a scuffle to be untenable and unsupported by evidence.
Facts
On 4 December 2021, at the TSR Konaban GCS Post, the accused, a rifleman, approached his superiors seeking leave, which was not granted due to an upcoming training program. Following this, the accused cocked his service rifle and fired at Subedar Markhasin Jamatia, killing him on the spot, and then shot Nayek Subedar Kiran Kumar Jamatia, who later died in hospital.
An FIR was lodged by the informant, and the accused was arrested with his service rifle. A charge sheet under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was filed, and after trial, the Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the accused, leading to this appeal.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally committed murder under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the plea of accidental discharge during a scuffle could be accepted.
- Whether delay in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements affected the prosecution’s case.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued:
- The FIR was lodged after a delay of seven hours without explanation, raising suspicion about the genuineness of the prosecution’s case.
- Eye-witnesses did not immediately report the incident to the police despite being present, weakening the credibility of their testimony.
- The incident was an accidental discharge during a scuffle over leave, not intentional murder.
- Cited Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu, and Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel v. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel to argue that delayed FIR and delayed witness examination weaken the prosecution’s case.
- Asserted the failure of the prosecution to explain the delay, urging the court to extend the benefit of doubt.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State contended:
- The delay in FIR was due to procedural formalities within the disciplined TSR camp, and preliminary actions were taken based on GD entry, which does not invalidate the case.
- Consistent eyewitness testimonies (PWs 5, 8, 9, 10, 11) and medical evidence clearly established the accused fired upon the victims intentionally.
- The accused was present at the scene with his service rifle and did not dispute that he fired the shots.
- Cited Dharnidhar v. State of UP, State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, Brajendrasingh v. State of MP, and Kalabhai Hamibhai Kachhot v. State of Gujarat to support reliance on consistent eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and the use of the accused’s statements under Section 313 CrPC in corroboration with prosecution evidence.
Analysis of the Law
- Under Dharnidhar, Section 313 CrPC statements can corroborate prosecution evidence if consistent with the case.
- Kalabhai Hamibhai Kachhot reaffirms that minor discrepancies or procedural delays do not vitiate the prosecution if core facts are proven.
- In murder cases under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution must prove intention beyond reasonable doubt, which can be inferred from the act of using a firearm deliberately.
- The rule under Brajendrasingh requires examining whether the chain of circumstances points only towards the guilt of the accused.
Precedent Analysis
- Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra (1979): Delay in FIR can raise suspicion if unexplained.
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu (1993): Delay in FIR can affect credibility if no explanation is provided.
- Dharnidhar v. State of UP (2010): Statements under Section 313 CrPC can support prosecution if consistent.
- Kalabhai Hamibhai Kachhot v. State of Gujarat (2021): Minor discrepancies do not vitiate the case if the core is intact.
- Brajendrasingh v. State of MP (2012): Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt.
The Court found the defence reliance on delay arguments misplaced in this context as the delay was explained and did not affect core facts.
Court’s Reasoning
- The accused admitted being present with the service rifle and firing occurred.
- Witnesses consistently testified that the accused cocked and fired the rifle despite warnings, indicating deliberate intent.
- Medical evidence confirmed death due to gunshot injuries.
- The plea of accidental discharge was unsupported by any witness or medical evidence and was rejected.
- Delay in FIR was explained by procedural requirements within TSR and did not affect the case.
- The act of firing over denial of leave cannot be justified under any provocation and was deliberate.
Conclusion
The Tripura High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming:
- Conviction under Section 302 IPC.
- Sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000, with a default sentence of one-year rigorous imprisonment.
All interim orders were vacated, and the conviction was confirmed.
Implications
- Reinforces the principle that denial of leave does not constitute grave provocation to mitigate murder charges.
- Highlights that delay in FIR does not affect the case when explained and when consistent evidence is available.
- Emphasises responsibility of disciplined forces personnel regarding the use of service weapons.
Brief Note on Cases Referred
- Ganesh Bhavan Patel: Delay in FIR can raise suspicion if unexplained.
- Punati Ramulu: Delay may weaken the case if procedural steps are absent.
- Dharnidhar, Kalabhai Kachhot, Brajendrasingh: Affirm use of consistent witness testimony and Section 313 statements for conviction, even with minor discrepancies.
These were applied to reject the defence plea of delay and accidental firing.
FAQs
- Does delay in FIR automatically weaken a prosecution case?
No, if the delay is explained and consistent evidence exists, delay does not vitiate the case. - Can denial of leave constitute provocation in a murder case?
No, mere denial of leave does not justify violence against superiors. - Can statements under Section 313 CrPC be used for conviction? Yes, to the extent they support the prosecution case, they can be used in corroboration.
