Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal against Delhi High Court’s decision, wherein the conviction and sentence of the convict for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) by the Trial Court was upheld, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. dismissed the appeal and refused to interfere with the impugned decisions, calling the matter at hand a clear case of murder.
Factual Matrix
In the matter at hand, the police guard at Mayur Vihar Police Station, Delhi, committed murder inside the police station, while he was on duty. The deceased was his first cousin’s husband and his neighbour. The prosecution’s case was that the deceased had an illicit relationship with the convict’s wife. A First Information Report (‘FIR’) was lodged at Police Station Mayur Vihar, New Delhi on 30-06-2002 at 2:30 pm, under Sections 302/307 IPC on the narration of head constable. The Trial Court ultimately convicted and sentenced the convict under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. The convict did not deny that he killed the deceased and stated that he did it as a matter of self-defence, as convict’s wife said that, minutes prior to the incident, the deceased had come to her place and had warned her that he was going to the Police Station to kill the convict.
The entire case of the defence was built on the statement of the convict, that the deceased had come rushing to the Police Station and tried snatch the weapon from the convict and in this scuffle, shots were fired from the weapon, which was an accident, ultimately leading to his death.
Analysis
The Court on perusal of the statement of the lady head constable, wherein she had stated that she heard sounds of bullet shots and then saw the deceased running towards the Duty Officer’s room and that he was bleeding with his hands held up in the air, and the convict was seen firing at the deceased from his Carbine, said that this witness had remained steadfast to her version of the incident, which was given in the first information report lodged by her; and later in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination, during the trial. The Court said that her deposition established the guilt of the convict beyond reasonable doubt, and has its corroboration with other evidence, including ocular evidences of other prosecution witnessed, who were also constables or head Constables posted at the Police Station. Regarding the question of the presence of the head constable, the Court said that the same was established by the fact that she was an injured witness as she had sustained bullet injuries on her left shoulder. The Court had also perused the statement of another prosecution witness, who is a head constable and noted that on day of the incident sounds of shots were heard and a person with blood-stained clothes (the deceased) was trying to reach the duty officers’ room and was being chased by the convict.
The Court on perusal of the post- mortem report, said that the deceased had received 8 to 9 shots, and these shots were not only from the front but also from the back, while he was trying to escape. The Court said that the nature of these injuries corroborated with the ocular testimony of the lady head constable.
Adjournment of Cross-Examination
Further, the Court noted that the defence did not cross-examine the head constable immediately after her examination-in-chief, but sought that the cross examination be deferred, and was done two months after her examination-in-chief. The Court reiterated that cross examinations are being adjourned routinely which can seriously prejudice a fair trial. The Court added that the defence should cross examine the witness the same day or the following day, it is only in very exceptional cases, and for reasons to be recorded, the cross examination should be deferred and a short adjournment can be given after taking precautions and care, for the witness, if it is required. For reasons to be recorded by the Court, such as under Section 231(2) of the CrPC, the adjournment is not to be given as a matter of right and ultimately it is the discretion of the Court. The Court referred to State of Kerala v. Rasheed (2019) 13 SCC 297, wherein, guidelines were given, following which such an adjournment can be given. Hence, the Court reiterated that a request for deferral must be premised on sufficient reasons, justifying the deferral of cross- examination of the witness. The Court said that this practice is not healthy and the Courts should be slow in deferring these matters. The mandate of Section 231 of the CrPC and the law laid down on the subject must be followed in its letter and spirit.
Section 105 of the Evidence Act
The Court said that under Section 105, the burden of proof that the convict’s case falls within the general exception is upon the convict himself. The Court referred to State of M.P. v. Ramesh, (2005) 9 SCC 705 wherein, it was observed that, where the right of private defence is pleaded, the defence must be a reasonable and probable version satisfying the court that the harm caused by the convict was necessary for either warding off the attack or for forestalling the further reasonable apprehension from the side of the convict. The Court reiterated that the burden of proof though is not as onerous as the burden of proof beyond all reasonable doubts which is on the prosecution, nevertheless some degree of reasonable satisfaction has to be established by the defence, when this plea is taken. However, in the matter at hand, the defence was unable to establish a case of private defence by any evidence.
Decision
The Court said that the matter at hand, was a clear case of murder. The convict had also admitted to the motive, and the execution of the crime at the Police Station. Regarding the plea of self-defence and in the alternative the plea of grave and sudden provocation, the Court said they had no iota of evidence and they were based on the theory that it was the deceased who came to the police station in full speed in his car thereby first hitting the gate of the police station and then trying to snatch the weapon from the convict in order to kill him. Therefore, dismissing the appeals, the Court refused to interfere with the Trial Court and the High Court’s findings. The interim order, granting bail was vacated and the Court directed the convict to surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks from the date of decision.
[Surender Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1633, Decided on: 03-07-2024]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellant: AOR Arun K. Sinha
For the respondent: AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
