A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case Surender Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) revolves around the conviction of the appellant, Surender Singh, under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The incident occurred at Mayur Vihar Police Station, Delhi, where the appellant, serving as a police guard, killed the deceased with his official 9 mm carbine. The prosecution alleged the act was premeditated and motivated by the deceased’s illicit relationship with the appellant’s wife. The appellant raised defenses of self-defense and sudden provocation, claiming the deceased attempted to snatch his weapon. However, the Court dismissed these arguments, affirming the findings of both the Trial and High Courts. The Court upheld that the crime was an act of deliberate murder beyond exceptions under Section 300 IPC.

Keywords: Murder, self-defense, provocation, culpable homicide, Section 300 IPC.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Surender Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2012
iii) Judgment Date: July 3, 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Rajesh Bindal
vi) Author: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
vii) Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 163 : 2024 INSC 424
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 302, 307 IPC, Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, Section 105 Indian Evidence Act, Section 231 CrPC
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None
x) Case is Related to: Criminal Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appellant, a police guard, was accused of killing the deceased at a police station using his service weapon. The case arose from allegations of a relationship between the deceased and the appellant’s wife. The Trial Court convicted the appellant, and the High Court upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence, including eyewitness accounts, forensic reports, and the appellant’s defense of self-defense and sudden provocation. It emphasized the standards for claims of provocation and private defense under the IPC, ultimately rejecting these defenses and affirming the appellant’s guilt.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The incident took place on June 30, 2002, at Mayur Vihar Police Station, Delhi. The deceased, a relative of the appellant, was allegedly having an extramarital affair with the appellant’s wife. Multiple witnesses, including police personnel, testified that the appellant and the deceased were seen conversing minutes before the shooting. Using his official 9 mm carbine, the appellant shot the deceased, who succumbed to multiple gunshot wounds. An FIR was lodged under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, and forensic evidence corroborated the eyewitness testimonies.

The appellant contended the deceased came to the police station to kill him, leading to a scuffle and accidental firing. The prosecution presented evidence contradicting this claim, showing deliberate intent and premeditation in the act.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the appellant’s act constituted murder or could be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.
ii) Whether the defense of self-defense was established by the appellant under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
iii) Whether procedural lapses, such as deferred cross-examination, affected the trial’s fairness.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The appellant claimed the deceased aggressively entered the police station, attempted to snatch his weapon, and caused an accidental discharge in the ensuing scuffle.
ii) He argued that the act was not premeditated but provoked by the deceased’s actions, which deprived him of self-control, falling under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.
iii) The appellant highlighted the deceased’s threatening behavior before the incident, as corroborated by his wife (PW-25).
iv) The defense emphasized procedural lapses, including delayed cross-examination of key witnesses, which could compromise the trial’s integrity.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The prosecution established deliberate intent through multiple eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence, disproving claims of self-defense or accidental firing.
ii) It was argued that the appellant’s act of firing multiple shots, including from close range, indicated premeditation and malice.
iii) The prosecution refuted the defense of provocation, emphasizing the absence of any immediate threat to the appellant’s life.
iv) The evidence showed the deceased was unarmed and attempted to escape, contradicting the appellant’s claim of aggression.H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder.
ii) Section 307 IPC – Attempt to murder.
iii) Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to grave and sudden provocation.
iv) Section 105 Indian Evidence Act – Burden of proof for general exceptions.
v) Section 231 CrPC – Examination and cross-examination of witnesses.

I) JUDGMENT

a) Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the appellant’s act constituted deliberate murder under Section 302 IPC, rejecting defenses of self-defense and provocation. The evidence showed intent, malice, and absence of circumstances warranting mitigation to culpable homicide.

b) Obiter Dicta

The Court cautioned against undue adjournments in cross-examinations, emphasizing procedural integrity for fair trials under Section 231 CrPC.

c) Guidelines

1. Self-defense: The accused must provide sufficient evidence for claims under Section 105 Indian Evidence Act.
2. Provocation: Courts must evaluate reasonableness, immediacy, and proportionality under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.
3. Trial fairness: Adjournments in cross-examination should be minimized to prevent undue influence on trial integrity.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces the principles of criminal law regarding intent, burden of proof, and procedural safeguards. It emphasizes judicial scrutiny in defenses of self-defense and provocation, aligning with precedents like K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra.

REFERENCES

1. State of U.P v. Shambhu Nath Singh [(2001) 4 SCC 667].
2. Ambika Prasad v. State (Delhi Administration) [(2000) 2 SCC 646].
3. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1962 SC 605].
4. Salim Zia v. State of U.P. [(1979) 2 SCC 648].
5. State of M.P. v. Ramesh [(2005) 9 SCC 705].