In A Case Of Murder Involving A Police Guard Inside One Of Delhi's Police Stations, The Supreme Court Upheld The Conviction; Highlighting The Strength Of Eyewitness Testimonies, Motive And Forensic Evidence.

The Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of Surender Singh (a police guard) for the murder of Satish (his cousin-in-law) which occurred inside the Mayur Vihar Police Station in Delhi. The Court, in its judgment dated July 3, 2024, affirmed the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court of Delhi, concluding that the prosecution had successfully established a case of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Breif:

The murder took place inside the Mayur Vihar Police Station in Delhi, where Singh was on duty as a police guard. The prosecution argued that Singh shot Satish multiple times with his official carbine due to an illicit relationship between Satish and Singh’s wife. Evidence presented included eyewitness testimonies from police personnel present at the scene, the victim's post-mortem report detailing multiple gunshot wounds, and the forensic analysis of the crime scene.

Singh admitted to killing Satish but claimed it was an act of self-defense. He alleged that Satish confronted him at the police station and tried to snatch his carbine, leading to the accidental firing of the weapon. Singh also argued that if the court did not accept his self-defense plea, it should be considered a case of grave and sudden provocation, reducing the charge to culpable homicide.

The Court found the prosecution’s case, built on eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence, to be credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They found the testimony of a Head Constable (PW-2) particularly compelling, as she provided a consistent and detailed account of the events despite sustaining bullet injuries during the incident. The Court dismissed Singh’s claims of self-defense and grave and sudden provocation due to a lack of supporting evidence. They emphasized that the burden of proving such exceptions to murder rests with the accused.

The Apex Court's Observation:

The Court placed significant emphasis on the eyewitness accounts, particularly that of PW-2, a Head Constable who sustained bullet injuries during the incident. The Court noted, "She is an extremely credible and trustworthy witness and the veracity of her statement and deposition establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." Her testimony, consistent from the initial report to the trial, was corroborated by other police personnel present at the scene.

The Court also highlighted the importance of conducting cross-examinations promptly to ensure a fair trial. The Court observed, "As far as possible, the defence should be asked to cross examine the witness the same day or the following day." While acknowledging that deferrals are permissible under specific circumstances, the Court cautioned against routine adjournments that could prejudice the proceedings.

Citing the case of “K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605” The Supreme Court held that “provocation itself is not enough to reduce the crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In order to convert a case of murder to a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, provocation must me such that would temporarily deprive the power of self-control of a “reasonable person”.”

Refuting the appellant's plea of self-defense and grave and sudden provocation, the Court found no evidence to support the claim that the deceased was the aggressor. The Court stated, "The plea of self-defence taken by the accused/appellant is childish to say the least, in the light of the facts of the case, and on the weight of the evidence of the prosecution." The Court meticulously analyzed the nature of the injuries, the weapon used, and the number of shots fired, concluding that the appellant had acted with clear intent to kill and held “The nature of weapon used; the number of gun shots fired at the deceased; the part of the body where gun shots are fired, all point towards the fact that the appellant was determined to kill the deceased.”

The Court affirmed that the burden of proving exceptions to murder, such as self-defense o grave and sudden provocation, lies with the accused. Citing its previous rulings, the Court emphasized that provocation alone is insufficient to reduce murder to culpable homicide. The Court reiterated the need to assess the circumstances, the time lapse between provocation and the act, and the overall reasonableness of the accused's actions.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment in Surender Singh v. State of Delhi underscores the gravity of taking a life, particularly within the confines of a police station. The Court's reliance on credible eyewitness accounts, forensic evidence, and established legal principles reinforces the importance of a fair and thorough judicial process.

Coram:Justice SUDHANSHU DHULIA & Justice RAJESH BINDAL.
Between: Surender Singh Vs STATE(NCT OF DELHI)
Dated: 03-07-2024.