Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction under section 302 IPC - Accidental Firing

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the IPC , case of accidental firing , ruling that the incident involved accidental firing rather than intentional harm. The court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, delivered the judgment on July 17, 2023.

The appellant, Arvind Kumar, had appealed against his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the death of a constable. The court examined the evidence and testimonies presented, ultimately concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's intention to cause harm.

Justice Abhay S. Oka, in the judgment, stated, "The prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had either any intention of causing the death of the deceased or the intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased which was likely to cause his death." The court held that the appellant's actions amounted to gross negligence rather than a deliberate act.

The court analyzed expert reports, including those from ballistic experts, which confirmed that the firearm used by the appellant could be accidentally fired if the safety lever was not engaged. The evidence supported the appellant's claim of accidental firing during a scuffle with the constable.

"We have held that the version of the two witnesses who have deposed about the appellant making such statements does not inspire confidence," Justice Oka added, referring to statements attributed to the appellant after the incident. The court found these statements to be inconclusive and not indicative of intentional harm.

Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction under Section 302 and found him guilty of a lesser offense under Section 304A of IPC (causing death by negligence). The maximum sentence for this offense is two years. However, since the appellant had already served more than eight years, the court determined that further detention was unnecessary and canceled his bail bonds.

This judgment brings attention to the importance of determining intent in criminal cases and highlights the significance of expert analysis in evaluating complex scenarios. The court's decision to categorize the incident as accidental rather than intentional emphasizes the need for nuanced examination of evidence in criminal trials.

Date of Decision: July 17, 2023

Arvind Kumar vs State of NCT, Delhi

Latest Legal News