Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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