Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has converted the conviction of a Delhi police constable from murder to that of causing death due to rash and negligent act in a case of accidental fire in a police station. The 1994 incident, triggered after the deceased continued to talk on the office telephone despite repeated requests against it, has resulted into demise of his colleague.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal, while partly allowing an appeal filed by constable Arvind Kumar, said his detention was no longer required as he had already undergone a sentence of more than eight years.

"There is a failure on the part of the appellant who was holding a sophisticated automatic weapon to ensure that the change lever was always kept in a safety position. This was the minimum care that he was expected to take while he approached the deceased," the bench said. 

The court pointed out that there is gross negligence on the part of the appellant which led to a loss of human life. 

"Due to his rash and negligent act, the deceased lost his life. Therefore, the appellant is guilty of a lesser offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC for which the maximum sentence is imprisonment for two years," the bench said.     

It also said 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. 

According to the prosecution, the appellant was on guard duty at police station IP State on December 28, 1994. Sub Inspector Shashi Bala was the duty officer. Upon noticing that one constable Mohd Rashid was engaging the office telephone, she advised him against it as police station may receive some urgent calls. The appellant, who was on guard duty, also advised the deceased to end the call. However, the deceased playfully pushed the appellant while holding his SAF carbine. The appellant tried to extricate his weapon. During the scuffle, SAF got entangled in the chain attached to the appellant’s belt which led to the accidental firing of five rounds from the said automatic weapon. The deceased got five rounds of bullets in his neck. He was rushed to a hospital where he was declared dead.

In its judgement, the bench said assuming that when the appellant approached the deceased to stop him from using the telephone, he was aware that the change lever was not in a safety position, it is not possible to attribute knowledge to him that by his failure to keep SAF in the safety position, he was likely to cause the death of the deceased. The knowledge of the possibility of the deceased who was himself a policeman pulling SAF carbine cannot be attributed to the appellant. In fact, the appellant could not have imagined that the deceased would do anything like this. Thus, by no stretch of the imagination, it is a case of culpable homicide as defined under Section 299 of IPC, the bench said.

The court also noted the failure to prove the existence of the motive is one of the circumstances which makes the prosecution case regarding intentional firing by the appellant not worthy of acceptance.   

It said the HC itself recorded a finding that the motive as alleged did not inspire confidence. The prosecution claimed that the appellant was annoyed with the deceased as he had seen him and the woman SI in a compromising position.

The court also found that the statement of two policemen who claimed that they were eyewitnesses to the incident that did not inspire confidence. 

The witnesses claimed they heard appellant saying "Madam aapne yeh kya karva diya, Mere to bache barbad ho jayenge" (Madam, what have you made me to do, life of my children would be destroyed now) and woman SI Shashi Bala replying, "tum phikr mat karo may bhi tumhare saath hu, court tak tumhara saath dungi" (You don't worry, I am with you and will support you in court). 

The court, however, found the two statements as consistent with normal human conduct.

Case Title: Aravind Kumar Vs State of NCT Delhi