Summary
A police guard’s murder and attempted-murder convictions were upheld on consistent eyewitness and medical evidence showing repeated carbine fire, including at the fleeing deceased. Self-defence, accidental firing and grave and sudden provocation lacked evidentiary support. The Court also cautioned against routine deferment of cross-examination. Interim bail was vacated and surrender directed within four weeks.
Issues
- Whether the shooting was protected by private defence or reduced by grave and sudden provocation.
- Whether corroborated eyewitness evidence proved deliberate killing.
- When cross-examination may be deferred under Section 231(2) CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 105, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The accused bore the burden of establishing circumstances bringing the case within the pleaded exceptions. Though lighter than the prosecution’s beyond-reasonable-doubt burden, it required a reasonable and probable evidentiary foundation, absent here. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24)
- Section 300, Exception 1, Indian Penal Code, 1860Provocation must be grave and sudden enough to deprive a reasonable person in the relevant circumstances of self-control, with the fatal act traceable to that passion. Weapon, repeated shots, injuries and the surrounding facts excluded the exception. (¶¶ 24, 25)
- Section 231(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Deferral of cross-examination is discretionary, requires sufficient recorded reasons and should be exceptional and brief, with attention to witness safety and trial fairness. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
Held
- The injured head constable’s consistent account was corroborated by other police witnesses and medical evidence. Gunshot wounds to the front and back, including a close-range wound, supported her description of the appellant pursuing and firing at the bleeding deceased as he tried to escape. Deliberate murder was proved. (¶¶ 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23)
- The defence did not establish that the deceased tried to kill the armed appellant or that discharge occurred accidentally in a struggle. There was no supporting evidence, while repeated firing at the fleeing victim contradicted the claimed necessity of self-defence. The asserted vehicle impact on the station gate was also unsupported by its condition. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- Section 105 places the evidentiary burden for an exception on the accused, on a standard less demanding than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Even that burden was not met. The affair relied upon as background did not itself establish the grave and sudden loss of control required by Exception 1 to Section 300; the weapon, number of shots and injury locations showed a determined killing. (¶¶ 21, 22, 24, 25)
- Cross-examination should ordinarily occur the same or following day. A court may defer it under Section 231(2) only on sufficient reasons, exercising discretion rather than treating adjournment as a right. Long routine gaps may prejudice fairness and witness safety; the delayed questioning did not damage this witness’s consistent evidence. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- The convictions and sentences were maintained, interim bail vacated and surrender before the trial court directed within four weeks. The trial court was to ensure surrender and service of the remaining sentence. (¶¶ 1, 26)
Result
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed. Interim bail vacated and surrender before the trial court required within four weeks to serve the remainder.