A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case involves Shahid Ali, the appellant, accused of causing the death of Ishfaq Ali during a celebratory firing at a marriage ceremony. Initially charged under Section 302 of the IPC, his act was considered so imminently dangerous that it was likely to cause death. However, the Supreme Court reassessed the conviction based on the lack of prior enmity and intention to kill, reducing the charge to Section 304 Part II IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The conviction under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act remained intact. The appeal was partly allowed, and the appellant’s sentence was reduced to the period already served.

Keywords: Celebratory firing, culpable homicide, absence of enmity, Arms Act, intention to kill.

B) CASE DETAILS

i. Judgement Cause Title: Shahid Ali v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
ii. Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1479 of 2024
iii. Judgement Date: 11 March 2024
iv. Court: Supreme Court of India
v. Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
vi. Author: Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
vii. Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 377; 2024 INSC 191
viii. Legal Provisions Involved:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 299, 302, 304 Part I, and 304 Part II
• Arms Act, 1959: Sections 25 and 27
  ix. Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any): None
  x. Case Related to Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Evidence Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case arose from a tragic event during a marriage ceremony where celebratory firing resulted in the death of Ishfaq Ali. The incident underscored the risks associated with celebratory gunfire. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the Arms Act, 1959, which the High Court affirmed. However, the appellant challenged his conviction before the Supreme Court, questioning whether his act constituted murder or culpable homicide.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On March 17, 2016, during a marriage ceremony in Firozabad, Shahid Ali discharged a firearm, accidentally killing Ishfaq Ali.
2. The deceased was struck in the neck, succumbing to the injury on the spot.
3. An FIR under Section 302 IPC was lodged, citing prior enmity.
4. The appellant confessed under Section 161 CrPC, and another FIR under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered.
5. Despite initial support for the prosecution, all eyewitnesses turned hostile during the trial.
6. Medical evidence corroborated death by gunshot wound, but no malicious intent was established.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the appellant’s act constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC.
ii. Whether the lack of intention and prior enmity shifted liability to Section 304 Part II IPC.
iii. The impact of celebratory firing within the context of criminal liability.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The appellant argued that the act was accidental and lacked any intention to kill or harm.
ii. He contended that the act fell under Section 304 Part II IPC as there was no prior enmity with the deceased.
iii. The appellant sought leniency based on absence of malice and the accidental nature of the incident.
iv. Past precedents, such as Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand [(2014) 12 SCC 434], were cited to demonstrate the applicability of Section 304 Part II IPC.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The prosecution asserted that the act was reckless, warranting conviction under Section 302 IPC.
ii. The respondent emphasized that celebratory firing is inherently dangerous, with a high probability of fatality.
iii. They argued for upholding the trial court and High Court’s findings.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302: Murder.
• Section 304 Part II: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, committed with knowledge but without intention.

ii. Arms Act, 1959:

• Section 25: Possession of illegal firearms.
• Section 27: Use of firearms leading to injury or death.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that celebratory firing, though reckless, lacked intent to kill. The absence of prior enmity and intention shifted liability from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC.

b. Obiter Dicta
The Court condemned celebratory firing as a hazardous and irresponsible practice. It highlighted the need for stringent measures to curb such acts.

c. Guidelines Issued (If Any):
The Court emphasized considering totality of circumstances, including absence of malice and prior enmity, in similar cases.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case reaffirms the distinction between murder and culpable homicide. It highlights the dangers of celebratory gunfire and urges accountability. By reducing the charge, the Court balanced justice with the mitigating factors.

REFERENCES

1. Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2014) 12 SCC 434.
2. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 14 SCC 184.
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. Arms Act, 1959.
5. Shahid Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2024] 3 S.C.R. 377.