NON-REPORTABLE

2025 INSC 503

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 476 OF 2015

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS
SHAMSHER SINGH …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. Heard Shri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and

Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Under challenge in this criminal appeal preferred by the State

of Himachal Pradesh is the judgment and order dated

14.07.2014 of the High Court whereby it has reversed the

judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court and

had acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence under

Signature Not Verified

1 In short ‘IPC’
1
 the Arms Act, 1959 but has convicted him for commission of

offence under Section 326 IPC. The consequential order dated

28.07.2014, imposing punishment of the term already

undergone by the accused-respondent, is also under challenge.

3. The accused-respondent is the sole accused who was found

guilty for an offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of

the Arms Act, 1959. He was sentenced to undergo seven years

of rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 with fine of

Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to

undergo simple imprisonment of one year. He was also

punished for an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959

with rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of

Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple

imprisonment of three months. Both the sentences were

ordered to run concurrently.

4. On an appeal preferred by the accused-respondent, the

aforesaid conviction has been set aside and he has been

acquitted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 27

of the Arms Act, 1959 but has been convicted for the offence

2
 under Section 326 IPC and sentenced with imprisonment

already undergone.

5. The High Court in acquitting the accused-respondent held that

for an offence under Section 307 IPC, the court was obliged to

see if the act was done with the intention or knowledge so as to

cause death and since the facts do not prove such intention or

knowledge on part of the accused-respondent, there cannot be

an offence for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. It also

observed that the intention has to be gathered from the entire

circumstances of the case such as nature of the weapon used,

the manner in which it was used, severity of the blow or hurt,

the part of the body where the injury was inflicted and so on

and not merely from the end result.

6. On the date of the incident i.e. 05.11.2010 which happened to

be a day of Diwali festival, the accused-respondent was posted

as Guard at Company Headquarter 2nd Indian Reserve

Battalion in District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. It appears

that he was not satisfied with the quality of food served at the

mess and, therefore, he had raised an objection regarding it,

whereupon his colleagues advised him to wait for some time

3
 since the incharge of the mess was out of station. However, the

accused-respondent was in an aggressive mood and decided to

settle scores with regard to the quality of food then and there.

He finished his duties at about 9 p.m. and opened fire with his

AK-47 rifle upon other constables. In the incident, Sanjeet

Kumar (PW-2), Head Constable, suffered injuries in both his

upper thighs. In that connection FIR No. 107 dated 06.11.2010

was lodged by him before the Police Station, Tissa, District

Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. The injured Head Constable who

had suffered bullet injuries was admitted in the hospital for

treatment and remained there till 08.12.2010.

7. Upon completion of the investigation, a final report was

submitted charging the accused-respondent for the offence

under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

During the trial, prosecution examined as many as sixteen

witnesses to prove the charges against the accused-

respondent. The statement of the accused-respondent under

Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure2 was also recorded

wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated.

2 In short ‘CrPC’
4
8. Admittedly, the accused-respondent on 05.11.2010 had

performed his duty as a guard at the Company Headquarter,

Tarela between 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. He was replaced by the

Constable Ajeeb Kumar (PW-9) to perform duties from 9 p.m.

to 12 midnight. At that time, the accused-respondent raised

objection with regard to the quality of food served in the mess.

Constable Sanjeet Kumar (PW-2) who was present with Head

Constable Sarwan Kumar (PW-3) and Head Constable Satpal

(PW-4) tried to pacify him but the accused-respondent was very

annoyed and announced to settle things then and there. Since

it was a Diwali day, some of the colleagues namely Constables

Ashok Kumar and Vivek Garg (PW-7) were bursting crackers.

The accused-respondent got further agitated with the bursting

of the crackers. He asked them to stop and threatened that if

they do not stop, he will fire. Constable Sanjeet Kumar (PW-2)

after having dinner along with his colleagues went to urinate in

the open, getting down from the stairs. On return, the accused-

respondent followed them while climbing the stairs and

abruptly opened fire with his AK-47 rifle. In the incident,

Constable Sanjeet Kumar (PW-2) was hit and had sustained

5
 injuries in his upper thighs. He was then taken to the

dormitory. The accused-respondent, despite this, opened fire

again but fortunately no one was hit the second time. He

entered the dormitory with his AK-47 rifle but was overpowered

by Head Constable Kulwant Kumar and Constable Ashok

Kumar with the help of Constable Sunil Kumar and Constable

Vivek Garg. He was nabbed and his AK-47 rifle was snatched.

9. Seven empty cartridges were recovered lying at different places

on the spot and were taken into possession. Dr. Ashish Kumar

(PW-1) who had examined the injuries of Constable Sanjeet

Kumar (PW-2) stated that he had suffered four injury wounds,

two each on the right and left thighs. The injuries were grievous

in nature but were not dangerous to life of the patient/injured.

All the witnesses deposed against the accused-respondent and

corroborated the incident and the involvement of the accused-

respondent in the incident of firing resulting in gun shot

injuries to the Constable Sanjeet Kumar (PW-2).

10. The facts and circumstances reveal that the accused-

respondent in rage had fired indiscriminately with his service

weapon AK-47 knowing fully well that the bullets may cause

6
 bodily injury to any of his colleagues, which further may in all

probability cause death. The incident of firing appears to have

been done with the intention of causing bodily injury to the

colleagues, fully knowing that such injury would likely to cause

death of the person to whom it may hit.

11. In a recent case of The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kanha

@ Omprakash3 before this Court, the facts were quite similar

to the present case. In the said case, there was an altercation

between the two parties and the accused with a firearm caused

bleeding injuries on the right thigh of the injured. The accused

was found guilty for the offence under Section 307 read with

Section 324 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment of three years along with fine of Rs.1,000/-. The

other co-accused persons were acquitted of all the charges

levelled against them. However, in appeal, the High Court set

aside the conviction and acquitted him under Section 307 but

sentenced him to imprisonment of forty days already

undergone for the offence under Section 324 IPC along with

fine of Rs.3,000/-. The court relying upon the observation

3 (2019) 3 SCC 605

cases has to see whether the act, irrespective of the result, was

done with the intention or knowledge to cause death, held that

the accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be

acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim

were in the nature of a simple hurt. Section 307 uses the word

‘hurt’ and not grievous hurt or hurt of the nature which is

dangerous or life threatening. Since the evidence establishes

that the injuries were caused by firearm and the multiplicity of

the wounds indicate that the accused fired more than once

coupled with the fact that the hurt has been caused by the

accused stands proved, the mere fact that the hurt, though,

grievous but not dangerous to life, cannot be the basis to hold

that Section 307 IPC is inapplicable.

12. It may be emphasized that to attract Section 307 IPC, it is not

necessary that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular

degree. If hurt of any nature is caused and it is proved that

there was intention or knowledge to cause death, Section 307

IPC would stand attracted.

4 (2005) 5 SCC 554

service weapon AK-47 and since he was a constable in the

army, he was well aware that gunshot from such a weapon, if

hits anyone will certainly result in causing death. There is no

denial of the fact that the injured had sustained four injuries,

two each on both the upper thighs and they were of grievous

nature. The injuries may not be life threatening, but it leaves

no doubt that there was intention to cause death.

14. The judgment of the High Court overlooks these crucial aspects

in acquitting the accused-respondent from the offence under

Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

15. In our opinion, the judgment and orders of the High Court

dated 14.07.2014 and 28.07.2014 cannot be sustained and are

accordingly set aside, restoring the judgment and order of the

Trial Court dated 20.03.2013. However, as no minimum

sentence is prescribed under Section 307 Indian Penal Code,

taking into consideration the fact that the accused respondent

was in discipline force, the incident is of 2010 and that it had

happened in a rage of anger, but with predetermined mind, in

the interest of justice we reduce the punishment to that of

9
 already undergone (about 1 year 5 months) in place of 7 years

rigorous imprisonment.

16. The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part accordingly.

...................………………………….. J.
(PANKAJ MITHAL)

.............……………………………….. J.
(S.V.N. BHATTI)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 17, 2025.

10