Feeling Of Anger Relevant U/S.8 Of Evidence Act As It Provides Motive To Commit Crime: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction Of Sentry
The Delhi High Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of conviction passed against the appellant.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a man on sentry duty for allegedly killing his colleague after noting that the gunshots fired by the accused were done with the intention to cause death. The High Court held that feelings of anger are the motivation for the revenge, and such feelings are relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act since they provide a motive to the offender to commit a crime.
The High Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of conviction passed against the appellant.
The Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav held, “Feelings of anger is the motivation for the revenge, and the spark of pleasure is the hedonic reward for inflicting hurt on someone who hurts you. Such feelings of anger are relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), since it provides motive to the offender to commit crime.”
Advocate Gunjan Sinha Jain represented the Appellant, while APP Aashneet Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Appellant was allegedly beaten by one Lance Naik Kanhaiya Lal when they were on duty at the Guard Room. The Appellant was allegedly on sentry duty where the security personnel used to take rest or sleep. Feelings of vengeance gave motive to him to allegedly fire fatal shots from his rifle at Lance in the night while the latter was sleeping. A case for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered, and an investigation was taken up. On conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the Appellant. He was convicted to sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 10,000 for the offence of murder. He was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The said conviction and order on sentence were assailed by the Appellant in the appeal, under consideration.
Reasoning
The Bench explained that Section 60 of the Evidence Act enacts that the oral evidence must be direct. The expression “direct evidence” used in the said section refers to “original” evidence as distinguished from “hearsay” evidence. As per the Bench, in order to make proof of a basic or primary fact, the Court has to judge the evidence in the ordinary way, as enacted by Section 60 of the Act. “In considering the circumstantial evidence, the Court must first see whether the circumstances put forward are satisfactorily proved and whether the proved circumstances are sufficient to bring home satisfactorily the guilt to the Accused. The established circumstances must not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but at the same time they must be inconsistent with his innocence.”
Evidence adduced by the prosecution highlighted that the offender was beaten by the victim a day before. It emerged that the Appellant left the sentry post, came inside the room where the deceased and the other two witnesses (Police Officials) were sleeping and fired a shot at the victim. The gunshot sound was heard by the Police Officials, which woke them from their sleep. They found the offender having his rifle in his hands and the body of the deceased bleeding profusely. The Appellant attempted to get himself released from the grip of the Constable. When he failed to succeed, the Appellant extended threats, uttering that he would fire a gunshot at the constable too, in case he would not release him. “All these sequences of events lead us to draw a presumption that it was the Appellant and none else who fired gunshots on the victim, which proved to be fatal”, the Bench mentioned.
Considering that the gunshot wounds were caused on the right sub-mandibular region/angle of mandibula and on the right front lower part of chest/coastal margin of the body of Lance, from close range, the Bench held that these wounds were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In light of the facts that a rifle was used and two shots on the vital part of the body of the deceased were fired, the Bench concluded that the said shots were fired with the intention to cause his death. All ingredients for an offence of murder had been proved against the Appellant.
The Bench explained that Section 7 of the Arms Act sanctions restrictions against the user of any prohibited arms or ammunition, unless so specially authorised by the Central Government in that behalf, which has been made punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. As per the Bench, the Appellant used a rifle in the commission of the crime in violation of the provisions of Section 7 of the Arms Act and made himself liable to be punished under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Holding that the prosecution proved its case for the offence of murder, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the Appellant to the hilt, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Ram Singar Singh v. State (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10558-DB)