While reducing the punishment imposed upon an Army Constable who had opened fire with his service rifle, the Supreme Court has observed that Section 307 IPC would stand attracted if hurt of any nature is caused and it is proved that there was intention or knowledge to cause death.

The Criminal Appeal before the Apex Court was preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment reversing the order of conviction passed by the trial court and acquitting the accused-respondent from the offence under Section 307 of the India Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 but maintaining conviction under Section 326 IPC.

The Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti explained, “It may be emphasized that to attract Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree. 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.”

AOR Rajiv Kumar Sinha represented the Appellant while AOR Asha Gopalan Nair represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

On the date of the incident, i.e. November 5, 2010, which happened to be a day of Diwali festival, the accused-respondent was posted as a Guard at the Company Headquarters 2nd Indian Reserve Battalion in District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. He objected to the quality of food served at the mess. However, the accused-respondent was in an aggressive mood and after finishing his duties in the night, he opened fire with his AK-47 rifle at other constables.

In the incident, Sanjeet Kumar (PW-2), Head Constable, suffered injuries in both his upper thighs and was admitted to the hospital for treatment. He lodged an FIR before the Police Station. Upon completion of the investigation, a final report was submitted charging the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that all the witnesses deposed against the accused-respondent and corroborated the incident and the involvement of the accused-respondent in the incident of firing resulting in gunshot injuries to the Constable PW-2.

“The facts and circumstances reveal that the accused respondent in rage had fired indiscriminately with his service weapon AK-47 knowing fully well that the bullets may cause bodily injury to any of his colleagues, which further may in all probability cause death. The incident of firing appears to have been done with the intention of causing bodily injury to the colleagues, fully knowing that such injury would likely to cause death of the person to whom it may hit”, it said.

The Bench noted that the accused-respondent fired from his service weapon, AK-47, and since he was a constable in the army, he was well aware that a gunshot from such a weapon, if it hits anyone, will certainly result in causing death. The injured had sustained four injuries, two each on both the upper thighs and they were of a grievous nature. “The injuries may not be life threatening, but it leaves no doubt that there was intention to cause death”, it added.

As per the Bench, the judgment of the High Court overlooked these crucial aspects in acquitting the accused-respondent from the offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Bench thus allowed the appeal in part and restored the judgment of the Trial Court.

Considering the fact that no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, the accused respondent was in discipline force and the incident is of 2010 which happened in a rage of anger but with predetermined mind, the Bench held, “...in the interest of justice we reduce the punishment to that of already undergone (about 1 year 5 months) in place of 7 years rigorous imprisonment.”

Cause Title: The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shamsher Singh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 503)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Rajiv Kumar Sinha, Advocates Raj Kumar, Rajoday Satyjeet

Respondent: AOR Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocates Nivedita Nair, Shashikant Pralhad Chaudhari

Click here to read/download Judgment









Justice Pankaj MithalJustice SVN Bhatti

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.