Jharkhand HC Commutes Death Sentence Of Constable Who Opened Fire On Milk Supplier For Demanding Dues, Says S.27 Arms Act Not Attracted

The Jharkhand High Court has commuted the death sentence imposed on a Railway police constable who opened fire on the family of his neighbour-milk supplier, for demanding dues.

While doing so, the Court held that since the Constable had used his service pistol, conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act 1959 cannot stand.

The Court clarified that Section 27 of the Act does not apply in all cases involving the use of firearms, but is limited to instances where the firing is in violation of Section 5 or Section 7 of the Arms Act, such as firing by an unlicensed individual or by a prohibited arm. In this case, the accused had used a service pistol, legally issued to him, thus making the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act unsustainable.

The division bench comprising Justices Ananda Sen and Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “Before entering into the issue of death sentence, on the face of it, finding and sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act is an error apparent on record. Section 27 of the Arms Act does not apply in all cases of firing, but is limited to only such cases where it is in violation of Section 5 and 7 of the Arms Act, 1959. Thus, where it is a firing by one having no license, or by a prohibited arms, then it will invite conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In the present case, firing was resorted to by a service pistol by the accused to whom it was issued, therefore, it is not a case of either firing by an unlicensed or prohibited arm and, so conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act is not sustainable.”

The case involved a Death Reference filed by the State and a Criminal Appeal by the accused, arising from a Sessions Court judgement where the appellant was sentenced to death under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant, a constable in the Railway Protection Force, had shot and killed three members of a family, including the informant's parents and one sister, while injuring the informant and another sister, Suman Devi.

The appellant's defence argued that the trial court had not properly considered the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in awarding the death sentence. These guidelines include a balance of factors such as the gravity of the crime, the criminal's potential for reform, and the proportionality of the punishment.

The defence also pointed out that the appellant had no prior enmity with the victims, no premeditated intent to kill, and that the crime occurred in a moment of emotional disturbance. The appellant was 26 years old with a clean service record, and the dispute had reportedly arisen over a demand for unpaid milk supplied by the victims. It was further argued that the trial court did not take into account the mitigating circumstances and failed to follow the sentencing criteria set forth by the Supreme Court in cases like State of M.P. v. Udham & Others, 2019.

The State, on the other hand, justified the death sentence by highlighting the extreme cruelty of the crime, in which the appellant used his service weapon to fire upon an unarmed family, resulting in three deaths and serious injuries to two others. The State emphasised that the severity of the crime outweighed any mitigating factors, including the appellant's age.

In its ruling, the Court reiterated that while the death penalty remains a legal option in India, it can only be awarded in the rarest of rare cases, as established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh & Others v. State of Punjab.

The Court concluded, “Considering the above factors like absence of past enmity, absence of preplanning in execution, and offence being the outcome of momentary emotional disturbance, we are of the view that this is a case where the alternative to death sentence is not foreclosed, so as to make it the only available option of sentencing.”

As a result, the Court commuted the death sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a minimum of 25 years without remission, along with a fine of Rs. 10,000 for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act was set aside.

Case Title: The State of Jharkhand vs Pawan Kumar Singh

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 154

Click Here To Read Judgement