Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Attempt to Murder Case Involving Chandigarh Police Constable

The case of Surinder Singh v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) involved an appeal against a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Supreme Court reduced the appellant’s sentence to the period already undergone while upholding his conviction under Section 307 IPC. However, the Court set aside his conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act, holding that misuse of a licensed weapon does not automatically attract punishment under that provision.

The ruling clarifies the interpretation of the Arms Act and reinforces the principle of proportional sentencing in criminal cases.

Background of the Case

Surinder Singh, a Head Constable in the Chandigarh Police, was accused of attempting to murder advocate Mansur Ali at his residential office on July 10, 1999. Singh allegedly entered the office in an inebriated condition, asked for water, and then pulled out his service pistol, threatening to kill the complainant.

The complainant lunged at the appellant and pushed his hand toward the ceiling, causing the bullet to hit the ceiling instead of him. The appellant then attempted to fire again, but a bullet fell from his pistol. At that moment, members of the complainant’s household entered the room, and the appellant fled, leaving behind his wireless set and scooter.

The police arrested him shortly thereafter with the pistol still in his hand. A medical examination confirmed that he was intoxicated, and forensic tests established that the cartridge found in the office had been fired from his service pistol.

Arguments by the Petitioner

Surinder Singh contended:

There was no motive for him to kill the complainant, as they either had good relations or were complete strangers.
His actions did not demonstrate intent to commit murder.
The statements of the prosecution witnesses contained contradictions.
The complainant’s employees, who testified against him, were interested witnesses.
The conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act was unsustainable because he was using a licensed weapon.

Arguments by the Respondent

The State argued:

The conviction was based on clear and consistent witness testimony.
The ballistic and medical evidence supported the prosecution’s case.
There was no substantial legal question requiring Supreme Court intervention.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant, and A.S. Bopanna, ruled:

“Neither the presence of the appellant at the site of the episode nor the fact that the bullet was fired through his service pistol is disputed. The appellant’s conduct was sufficient to infer that he intended to eliminate the complainant.”

The Court found that:

The appellant entered the complainant’s office in an inebriated condition and pulled out his pistol without provocation.
The pistol was in firing mode, and he aimed at the complainant’s face.
The complainant’s actions prevented the bullet from hitting him.
Forensic tests confirmed that the cartridge recovered from the office had been fired from the appellant’s pistol.
The defense’s claim that the complainant had fired the gun himself was implausible.

Regarding Conviction Under the Arms Act

The Court found that the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act was erroneous:

“The appellant, being in authorized possession of the weapon, cannot be said to have used an unlicensed weapon as prohibited under Section 5 of the Arms Act. Illegal use of a licensed weapon per se does not constitute an offense under Section 27, without proving the misdemeanor under Section 5 or 7 of the Arms Act.”

Reduction of Sentence

While upholding the conviction under Section 307 IPC, the Court reduced the sentence, citing mitigating factors:

The act appeared impulsive rather than premeditated.
No injury was caused to the complainant.
The appellant had already served three months and nineteen days in custody.
There was no record of him engaging in criminal activity before or after the incident.
He had an otherwise unblemished service record.
He had already been dismissed from service and lost his pension and other benefits.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling highlights the importance of proportional sentencing and clarifies the scope of the Arms Act. While upholding the conviction for attempt to murder, the Court ensured that the punishment was commensurate with the gravity of the offense and the circumstances of the accused.

Petitioner Name: Surinder Singh.
Respondent Name: State (Union Territory of Chandigarh).
Judgment By: Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Chandigarh.
Judgment Date: 26-11-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: surinder-singh-vs-state-(union-territo-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-26-11-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by N.V. Ramana
See all petitions in Judgment by Surya Kant
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category