Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav, while affirming the conviction of a sentry for murdering a fellow guard in retaliation, upheld the sentence of life imprisonment for murder and the punishment imposed for unauthorised use of a service rifle. The case concerned an appellant-sentry who fatally shot his colleague while on security duty after an earlier altercation in which he was assaulted. In doing so, the Court reflected that acts driven by revenge are instinctive and briefly satisfying yet seldom bring enduring peace or well-being, and cautioned citizens against yielding to such impulses.

The appeal concerned the conviction of the appellant for offences under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case recorded that the appellant and the victim were on night security duty at premises in Kirti Nagar, where an altercation had occurred a day prior. The Prosecution submitted that the appellant allegedly fired fatal shots at the victim around 3:30 a.m. while he was sleeping, following which he was apprehended at the spot with his rifle. The Trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fines.

Also Read: S. 32(1) Evidence Act | Mere Fact That Death Not Imminent Does Not Make Dying Declaration Irrelevant: Supreme Court

The appellant contended that there was no direct evidence showing that he fired the gunshots, the incident occurred in darkness, and other security personnel also possessed firearms. He claimed false implication, absence of fingerprints, contradictions in witness testimonies, and absence of independent witnesses. The prosecution argued that eyewitness accounts, recovery of the rifle, medical findings, and forensic evidence established guilt. Evidence included witness testimonies of Const. Devinder Pal Singh and HC Rajesh Singh Chauhan, recovery memos, site plans, autopsy findings, and ballistic reports. Statutory provisions relied upon included Section 8 and Section 60 of the Evidence Act, Section 302 IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court recorded that “feelings of anger is the motivation for the revenge, and the spark of pleasure is the hedonic reward for inflicting hurt”, referring to the relevance of motive under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. It noted that the appellant had been beaten a day before the incident, and this “gave motive to him, who allegedly fired fatal shots… while the latter was sleeping.”

The Bench stated that although the Trial Court treated the matter as circumstantial, the High Court concluded that “the prosecution has led direct evidence to establish its case against the Appellant, to the hilt.” It recorded that the quarrel between the appellant and the victim on 26.06.1996 was proved through Ex. PW8/B and corroborated by witnesses, and the appellant did not challenge these facts.

The Court observed that eyewitnesses awoke upon hearing gunshots and “saw the Appellant carrying his rifle… [and] fired another shot… who was sleeping over a cot.” Their testimonies were found credible, with the Court stating that their “substratum… remained intact and un-assailed.” It further recorded that the appellant was overpowered when attempting to flee and that the weapon and cartridges were recovered at the scene.

Regarding medical evidence, the Court stated that the autopsy revealed “oval punctured wound… caused by fire arm fired from near/close range” and that the injuries were “sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.”

The ballistic report confirmed that “cartridges and broken bullet pieces… were fired through the rifle Ex. P-1,” and the site plans corroborated the sequence of events. The Court recorded that the appellant's threat to the witness amounted to an extra-judicial confession: “he would fire a gunshot on the constable too, in case he would not release him.”

The Bench stated that the evidence compelled the presumption that “it was the Appellant and none else who fired gunshots on the victim.” It applied Section 300 IPC, recording that intention can be inferred from use of a rifle, vital body parts targeted, and close-range firing. It concluded that “all ingredients for an offence of murder have been proved to the hilt against the Appellant.”

Also Read: Tax Authorities May Skip Pre-SCN Consultation In Large GST Fraud Cases Involving Multiple Entities And A Complex Maze Of High-Value Transactions: Delhi High Court

It further recorded that the appellant’s use of the rifle constituted a violation under Section 7 of the Arms Act, attracting Section 27 liability.

The Court stated: “we are constrained to hold that the prosecution has proved its case for offence of murder, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the Appellant to the hilt. Therefore, his conviction for those offences is, hereby, maintained.”

“Sentence awarded to the Appellant is in consonance with law. The same is, accordingly, maintained. The appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Let the copy of this judgment to be transmitted to the concerned Trial Court for necessary action.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Appellant: Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent (State): Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for State

Case Title: Ram Singar Singh v. State
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:10588-DB
Case Number: CRL.A. 173/2003
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad, Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav