Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently emphasised that to attract Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree, holding that 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.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S V N Bhatti allowed in part an appeal filed by the Himachal Pradesh government against reversal of conviction of a guard of Indian Reserve Battalion for the offence of attempt to murder, for open fire on his colleagues by AK-47 rifle in District Chamba in 2010 after being enraged over the quality of food served on the Diwali day.

The court observed that as per the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-accused fired in rage with his service weapon AK-47 knowing fully that the bullets may cause bodily injury to any of his colleagues, which further may in all probability cause death.

Referring to State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Kanha @ Omprakash (2019) and State of MP Vs Saleem (2005), the bench held that the court in such cases has to see whether the act, irrespective of the result, was done with the intention or knowledge to cause death. The court has also held that 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. 

"Section 307 uses the word ‘hurt’ and not grievous hurt or hurt of the nature which is dangerous or life threatening. Since the evidence establishes that the injuries were caused by firearm and the multiplicity of the wounds indicate that the accused fired more than once coupled with the fact that the hurt has been caused by the accused stands proved, the mere fact that the hurt, though, grievous but not dangerous to life, cannot be the basis to hold that Section 307 IPC is inapplicable," the bench categorically observed.

Brief Background

The accused-respondent, Shamsher Singh, on November 05, 2010 completed his duty and was filled in by Constable Ajeeb Kumar to serve from 9 p.m. to 12 midnight.

At that time, the accused-respondent raised objection with regard to the quality of food served in the mess. Constable Sanjeet Kumar, present with Head Constable Sarwan Kumar and Head Constable Satpal tried to pacify him but the accused-respondent was very annoyed and announced to settle things then and there. 

Since it was a Diwali day, some of the colleagues namely Constables Ashok Kumar and Vivek Garg were bursting crackers. The accused-respondent got further agitated with the bursting of the crackers. He asked them to stop and threatened that if they do not stop, he will fire. 

Constable Sanjeet Kumar after having dinner along with his colleagues went to urinate in the open, getting down from the stairs. On return, the accused respondent followed them while climbing the stairs and abruptly opened fire with his AK-47 rifle. In the incident, Constable Sanjeet Kumar was hit and had sustained injuries in his upper thighs. He was then taken to the dormitory. 

The accused-respondent, despite this, opened fire again but fortunately no one was hit the second time. He entered the dormitory with his AK-47 rifle but was overpowered by Head Constable Kulwant Kumar and Constable Ashok Kumar with the help of Constable Sunil Kumar and Constable Vivek Garg. He was nabbed and his AK-47 rifle was snatched.

In the case, Constable Sanjeet Kumar had suffered four injury wounds, two each on the right and left thighs. The injuries were grievous in nature but were not dangerous to the life.

All the witnesses deposed against the accused-respondent and corroborated the incident and his involvement in the incident of firing resulting in gunshot injuries to the Constable Sanjeet Kumar.   

The trial court had sentenced him to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 with fine of Rs 20,000. He was also punished for an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 with rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs 5,000. The HC convicted him of the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to the period already undergone.

Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shamsher Singh