Use of AK-47 Shows Knowledge That Bullets Could Kill: Supreme Court Restores Conviction Under Section 307 IPC

“In firing an AK-47, a constable trained in its use cannot feign ignorance that his act could cause death” — In a significant judgment delivered on April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction of a constable who had opened fire on his colleagues with an AK-47 rifle following a heated altercation over food served at the battalion mess. The Court set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision which had diluted the charge from attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC to merely grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC. 
 The Apex Court held that the act of indiscriminate firing from a service weapon, particularly an AK-47, clearly establishes the accused’s intention or knowledge that death could result, thereby attracting Section 307 IPC. However, considering the time elapsed and that the accused had already spent around 1 year and 5 months in custody, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. 
 The case has its origins in an incident that occurred on November 5, 2010, during Diwali celebrations at the Company Headquarters of the 2nd Indian Reserve Battalion, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. Constable Shamsher Singh, dissatisfied with the quality of food served at the mess, lost his temper when advised to wait for the mess incharge to return. As the mood turned festive with colleagues bursting crackers, the accused became increasingly agitated. 
According to the Court's findings: “He finished his duties at about 9 p.m. and opened fire with his AK47 rifle upon other constables.” 
Constable Sanjeet Kumar suffered bullet injuries on both his upper thighs and had to be hospitalized for over a month. Despite his colleagues trying to pacify him, the accused fired again and stormed into the dormitory with his rifle before being overpowered and disarmed. 
 The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the accused’s act of firing multiple rounds from an AK-47 rifle, even though it resulted in non-fatal injuries, amounted to attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. 
The High Court had previously held that since the injuries were not life-threatening, and there was no proof of an intention to cause death, the offence under Section 307 IPC could not be sustained. 
The Supreme Court disagreed with this reasoning. It emphasized: “Section 307 uses the word ‘hurt’ and not grievous hurt or hurt of the nature which is dangerous or life-threatening.” 
The Court stressed that what mattered was intention or knowledge — not the end result of the injuries. Relying on earlier decisions, including State of M.P. v. Kanha @ Omprakash and State of M.P. v. Saleem, it reiterated: 
 “The accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt… If hurt of any nature is caused and it is proved that there was intention or knowledge to cause death, Section 307 IPC would stand attracted.” 
The Supreme Court was particularly swayed by the fact that the weapon used was an AK-47 rifle — known for its lethal potential. The Bench observed: 
  “Since he was a constable in the army, he was well aware that gunshot from such a weapon, if hits anyone will certainly result in causing death.” 
 The Court found the High Court’s judgment lacking in appreciation of this vital fact. 
 While restoring the Trial Court’s conviction under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, the Supreme Court took a lenient view on the sentence. Acknowledging that the incident happened 15 years ago and was provoked by momentary rage on a festival night, the Court said: 
 “As no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 307 IPC, taking into consideration the fact that the accused-respondent was in a disciplined force… and that it had happened in a rage of anger, but with predetermined mind, in the interest of justice we reduce the punishment to that of already undergone.” 
 This ruling draws a clear line between mere injury and attempt to murder, emphasizing that the nature of the act and weapon used reflects the mental state of the accused. The Court decisively held that a trained constable firing an AK-47 into a group of fellow personnel cannot later claim ignorance of the possible consequences. 
 The decision stands as a strong precedent reinforcing that intention and knowledge, not the eventual severity of injuries, are what defines an offence under Section 307 IPC. 
 
Date of Decision: April 17, 2025