The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that Section 27 of the Arms Act does not apply in all cases of firing but is limited to only such cases where it violates Sections 5 and 7 of the Arms Act, 1959. Thus, where it is a firing by one having no license or by prohibited arms, then it will invite conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Appellant served as a constable in the Railway Protection Force. He was a neighbour of the informant's family and used to take milk from them. When the informant saw the appellant entering his house, he thought he had come to take milk. However, he suddenly heard shots being fired and rushed to the room where he saw the appellant- Pawan Kumar Singh, indiscriminately firing his pistol at his family members. In the barrage of firing, the informant, his mother, father, and two sisters sustained gunshot injuries. The informant and his sister- Suman Devi, survived, while his father, mother, and one sister died of bullet injuries. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The present death reference is preferred on behalf of the state, and the criminal appeal is filed by the Appellant.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that the trial court erred in taking into consideration the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in awarding the death sentence. It was furthermore contended that the mandate of law, which has been codified since 1973 Cr.P.C., is that special reasons are to be assigned in case of sentence of death. It was also contended that the incident took place in the spur of the moment, and no complaint has been received against the conduct of the appellant during the period of his incarceration.
Contentions of the State:
The state contended that the Appellant acted in a very cruel manner when he opened fire on the unarmed family with his service pistol, resulting in the death of three, including two ladies, and injuring two who received gunshot injuries. It was furthermore contended that the age of the accused cannot be considered as a factor to dilute the severity of the offence.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that Section 27 of the Arms Act does not apply to all the cases of firing but is only limited to cases where there is a violation of Sections 5 and 7 of the Arms Act, 1959. In the case of firing by one having no license or by a prohibited arm, then it will invite conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In the present case, the firing took place from a service pistol, therefore, conviction under Section 27 of the Arms cannot be attracted.
The Court furthermore observed that the death sentence has been consciously retained by the legislature and has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court relied upon the judgments titled Bachan Singh Versus State of Punjab, Machhi Singh & Others Versus State of Punjab, and Madan Vs. State of U.P.
The court noted that factors like the absence of past enmity, absence of preplanning in execution, and offence are the outcome of momentary emotional disturbance.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that this is a case where the alternative to the death sentence is not foreclosed, to make it the only available option of sentencing. The court commuted the death sentence to rigorous imprisonment.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court modified the sentence and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: The State of Jharkhand Vs Pawan Kumar Singh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Death Reference No.4 of 2023 With Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 588 of 2023
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.
Advocate for the informant: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
