Debangana Ray
Published on August 10, 2022 at 22:30 IST
The Supreme Court stated the possibility of the accused being short tempered to modify his conviction to Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part 1 IPC.
Yatendrasingh Ajabsingh Chauhan was working as a security guard at Mannat Bungalow owned by Bollywood star Shahrukh Khan.
The deceased Chandrapratap Singh and other security guards were also deployed at the said bungalow. He asked the accused about whether his firearm was working.
However, the accused in anger held the gun at the deceased and pulled the trigger.
Another security guard lodged FIR and the accused was charged for murder. The Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC.
The SC bench observed that the question whether the accused had an intention to commit the murder of the deceased or not would depend upon a combination of factors.
“There cannot be a straight jacket formula for deciding whether there was intention to commit the murder or not. Similarly, as to whether there was a grave and sudden provocation which would lead an accused to lose his power of self control would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.”
“It cannot be disputed that how a person responds to a particular situation would depend upon the temperament of a particular person. A hot tempered person may react differently as compared to a cool headed person….”
“…A perusal of the material placed on record would clearly reveal that there was no premeditation and that there was an altercation between the deceased and the appellant. The deceased questioned the appellant as to whether his revolver was filled with bullets or not.”
“He also questioned as to whether his fire arm was working or not. The possibility of the appellant being short tempered and responding in an unfortunate manner cannot be ruled out. Unfortunately, a loaded weapon was provided to the appellant by his employer.”
“There is no doubt that the appellant should have exercised caution and controlled himself. However, as already discussed herein above, the response to a particular situation may differ from person to person.”
Observing thus, the bench modified the conviction to Section 304 Part 1 IPC. Noticing the fact that the accused served the sentence for more than 8 years, the court order release of the accused as he had undergone sufficient punishment.