Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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