Case Name: State of Himachal Pradesh vs Shamsher Singh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal no. 476 of 2015
Date: 17 April, 2025
Quorum: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
Facts
The incident occurred the Diwali night on 5 November, 2010.
The accused-respondent, Shamsher Singh, was a guard at the Company Headquarter 2nd Indian Reserve Battalion in District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. He was disappointed with the food quality of the food quality in the mess and raised objections on the food.
He did not wait for the mess-in-charge and was in a aggressive mod and wanted to settle the issue immediately. Other colleague tried to cool him down and advised him to leave the matter.
But after finishing his duty at around 9PM, he open fired with his AK-47 rifle upon other constables. And the head constable Sanjeet Kumar suffered injuries in both his upper thighs. He fired again but no one was injured the second time and the other constables disarmed him.
FIR was lodged on 6.11.2010 at police station, Tissa, District Chamba. And the head constable Sanjeet Kumar who sustained bullet injuries was hospitalized until 8.12.2010.
Seven empty cartridges were recovered from the scene. The doctor examined the injuries and found four injury wounds, two on each thigh, which were grievous, but not dangerous to life. And all other witnesses corroborated the incident and Shamsher Singh’s involvement.
Issues
The main issue before the Supreme Court war was the challenge to the High Court judgment that reversed the Trial court’s conviction of accused-respondent under section 307 of the Indian penal code and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The High Court convicted him under section 326 of IPC instead of 307.
The core issue was whether the accused respondent acted with the intention or knowledge to cause death, which is a necessary ingredient for an offense under section 307 of the IPC.
Legal Provisions Involved
Section 307 of Indian Penal Code: This section deals with the “Attempt to Murder”
Section 326 of IPC: this section deals with “voluntarily causing grievous heart by dangerous, weapons or means”. The High Court convicted the accused-respondent under this section.
Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section deals with the “punishment for using arms, etc.” The Trial Court had convicted the accused-respondent under this section as well.
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: This section deals with the “examination of accused by the court”.
Arguments
Arguments from Appellant side (State of Himachal Pradesh)
The High Court erred in acquitting the accused-respondent under section 307 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The state contented that accused respondent fired in discriminately with his service weapon AK-47, knowing fully well that gunshot from such a weapon could cause death.
The state highlighted the injuries sustained by the head constable (for grievous injury wounds)
The state submitted that the intention to cause death could be inferred from the nature of weapon used, the manner of its use, and the fact that multiple shorts were fired by the accused respondent.
The state relied on the observation in the case of “State of MP versus Saleem (2005) 5 SCC 554” that the court must see if the act was done with the intention or knowledge to cause death, irrespective of the result, and that acquittal under section 307 is not warranted merely because the injuries were not life-threatening.
The state emphasized that the section 307 uses the word ‘hurt’ and not necessarily ‘grievous hurt’ or life-threatening hurt.
Argument from Respondent side (Shamsher Singh)
The respondent submitted all the arguments which were presented by him before the High Court.
The respondent highlighted that the High Court held that for an offense under section 307 IPC, the court must find that the act was done with the intention or knowledge to cause death, and in this case, the facts did not prove such intentional knowledge on the part of the accused-respondent.
The High Court observed that intention should be gathered from the entire circumstances, including the weapon, manner of use, severity of the heart, and the body, part injured, not just the outcome.
Analysis
The SC was not satisfied by the decision of the High Court and the reasoning behind it. The Apex Court highlighted that while the injuries sustained by the victim were grievous but not life-threatening, this alone was not sufficient to acquit the accused under section 307 IPC. The main aspect was ht intention or knowledge of the accused at the time of firing.
The Supreme Court considered:
- The use of AK-47 rifle, a service weapon known for its potential to cause death. And as a constable, the accused was well aware of the weapon’s lethality.
- Multiple shots were fired by him in rage and aggressive mood.
- The principle that section 307 is attracted even if the hurt caused is not grievous or non life threatening, provided there was intention or knowledge to cause death.
The SC found that the accused, in his rage fired indiscriminately with his service weapon, knowing that such firing could lead to bodily injuries, which in all probability could lead to death.
Judgement
The SC allowed the Criminal Appeal in part. The judgement and orders of HC were set aside. And the judgement and order of the Trail Court were restored, convicted the accused-respondent under section 307 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
However, considering that no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 307 IPC, and taking into account that the accused was part of a disciplined force, the incident occurred in 2010 in a rage (but with a predetermined mind), the Supreme Court, in the interest of justice, reduced the punishment under Section 307 IPC to the period already undergone (1 year 5 months) instead of the 7 years of rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial court.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the accused-respondent was guilty of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC and of an offense under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. While upholding the trial court’s conviction, the Supreme Court took a lenient view on the sentence for the attempt to murder charge, reducing it to the period already served, considering the specific circumstances of the case. The case highlights the importance of considering the intention and knowledge of the accused, along with the nature of the act and the weapon used, when determining liability under Section 307 IPC, even if the resulting injuries are not fatal.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY ABHINAV VERMA
