| CITATION | 2024 SCC OnLine SC 259 |
| YEAR OF JUDGMENT | 2024 |
| STATUES REFERRED IN THIS CASE | Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 302 and 304 Part II)Arms Act, 1959 (Section 25/27) |
| APPELLANT | Shahid Ali |
| RESPONDENT | State of Uttar Pradesh |
| BENCH | Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma |
INTRODUCTION:
The case of Shahid Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) revolves around cases that concern with the tragic and unfortunate consequences of celebratory firing during marriage ceremonies, a practice highly prevalent in India. The Supreme Court decision addresses the legal question of whether the accused act resulting in death of Ishfaq Ali could be said to constitute murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC. This case exemplifies the application of distinction surrounding intent and recklessness under the criminal law as well as addressing the legal responsibility of individuals engaging with harmful substances and activities. The court’s directions in this case highlight both the legal understanding surrounding the issue while also underscoring the need for responsible behaviour in social settings to prevent such unfortunate accidents.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Incident: On March 17, 2016, during the marriage ceremony of Nizamuddin’s daughter, at around 3:30PM, a shot struck Ishfaq Ali in the neck, causing an immediate death. The shot came from a country-made pistol shot by Shahid Ali in a celebratory act. The act was set in a crowded environment of chaos allegedly motivated by celebratory ardour.
FIR Lodging: An FIR was lodged against Shahid Ali at the Jasrana Police Station in the District of Firozabad by Gulab Ali (chowkidar of village). The FIR has indicated presence of enmity between the deceased and the accused, which was later challenged in the trial.
Investigation: Multiple statements were taken from the witnesses present at the scene, including Gulab Ali. Medical evidence, including the post mortem report was also presented establishing death as a result of severe haemorrhage resulting from the gunshot wound. Weapon and cartridges from the scene were presented as evidence to corroborate the claim of celebratory firing.
Trial Court Proceedings: Under the Court of Sessions Judge, Firozabad in S.T. No. 290 of 2016 titled ‘State of U.P. v. Shahid Ali’, Shahid Ali was convicted under charges of murder under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under IPC and five years imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- along with additional imprisonment for violations under Arms Act.
High Court Appeal: Under the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad via Criminal Appeal No.1462 of 2018 titled ‘Shahid Ali v. State of U.P.’, the appeal was dismissed and conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld.
Supreme Court Appeal: Supreme Court concerned itself surrounding the scope of determining whether conviction should be under Section 302 IPC or Section 304 Part II IPC, considering intent and circumstances of the said Act.
ISSUE RAISED:
- Whether the act of celebratory firing by Shahid Ali amount to murder under Section 302 IPC or was it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC?
- Whether the act of Shahid Ali of celebratory firing is intentional or reckless to be construed as an act imminently dangerous so as to, considering the knowledge of likely consequences?
- Whether the appellant’s act of firing in an open crowded place without consideration leading to demise of Ishfaq Ali amounting to ‘culpable homicide’ within meaning of Section 299 of IPC punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC?
ARGUMENT OF APPELLANT:
The appellant (Shahid Ali) argued that the act of firing was a spontaneous and celebratory act with no premediated intention to harm or kill anyone, including the deceased. The presence of malice for conviction under Section 302 IPC as established by the prosecution in the Trial Court and High Court is denied by the appellant. The appellant maintained the act and its tragic consequences as purely accidental.
The inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the key prosecution witnesses was highlighted. Several witnesses alleging prior enmity between Shahid Ali and Ishfaq Ali turned hostile during the cross-examination suggesting no enmity and also that shooting might have been carried out by someone else.
The reliance of lack of concrete evidence to suggest existence of prior animosity between himself and the deceased was reiterated. This lack of motive as established by witnesses denying history between the parties is contended as having no intent to harm the deceased. The appellant also contended the absence of evidence to suggest him firing at large crowd/ gathering whilst engaging in such celebratory firing.
The appellant argued that the harm caused was unfortunate indulgence in the practice and a result of miscalculation, not malice and therefore for dismissal of the orders of District and High Courts under Section 302 IPC respectively. He further contended that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and High Court was excessive. And that he had undergone an equivalent period of punishment that was appropriate in the circumstances.
ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENT:
The respondent, represented by the State of Uttar Pradesh, asserted the act of Shahid Ali firing a loaded gun in a crowded wedding ceremony as not merely recklessness but an act with clear knowledge of likely consequences.
The FIR statements registered during investigation proving prior enmity between Shahid Ali and Ishfaq Ali was raised. Upon furtherance of trial in the Supreme Court, the FIR was contradicted but the respondent indicated possible motive of the crime suggesting intent behind actions of Shahid Ali.
The respondent relied on the circumstantial evidence and forensic findings to substantiate the case despite witnesses turning hostile. The medical report corroborating the death as a result of bullet wound directly traces to the act of celebratory firing implicating Shahid Ali in commission of the offense.
By underscoring the broader social implications of this irresponsible and dangerous practice of celebratory firing, it was argued in court as a gross disregard for the safety and lives of others thus emphasizing the need for deterrent punishment.
The respondent argued on above basis that the conviction under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and High Court was accurate.
PRINCIPLE APPLIED:
This case applied the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the offenses are outlined under Section 299 (Culpable Homicide) and Section 300(Murder) by distinguishing them based on the degree of intention associated with the act. This subsequently impacts the severity of the punishment imposed.
- Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand:
The case was referred by the court with its relevancy to the incident of reckless firing in crowded area resulting in death or grievous harm. The case used the principle of “constructive knowledge” which states that the accused cannot claim innocence on mere absence of intention. Knowledge is hereby inferred from the inherent risk involved with the act. The awareness that firing a weapon in a public space would endanger life or cause grievous injury is sufficient to categorize the offense under Section 304 Part II. Reckless behaviour in these acts does not equate to premediated intention to kill, a requisite necessary to establish and apply Section 302(murder). The court, in this case, emphasized with help of this reference that reckless actions causing death leads to culpability under Section 304 Part II.
- Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand:
This case involving the observance that firing a weapon in public space is inherently dangerous and therefore invite implicit awareness fulfilling the knowledge requirement to establish Section 299 IPC. The absence of evidence of malice or premediated intention to kill negated the applicability of Section 302 IPC in the case. The case was referred to establish that exhibiting gross recklessness even without any intention established is sufficient to amount to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC on the basis of “knowledge and likeliness of consequences.”
JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC by reclassifying the offense under Section 304 Part II IPC as “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”. It was held that the absence of intention to kill eliminates the possibility of classification as an offense of murder but acknowledged the knowledge of recklessness sufficient to establish culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The court reduced the sentence of Shahid Ali from life imprisonment to an already served sentence of approximately eight years considering the lack of premediated intention and prior enmity. The convictions made under the Arms Act under Sections 25/27 were left untouched and upheld regarding the illegal possession and use of firearm.
The court condemned celebratory firing as an inherently irresponsible and dangerous practice and emphasized the need for placing stricter regulations in curbing the same.
Thus, the court ruled in the favour of the appellant allowing the appeal in part, and ordered for his release considering the already served sentence and ordered disposal of pending applications accordingly.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court judgment in Shahid Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh involves application of criminal law principles by considering the severity of offense and contextual factors. The foundation of the judgment emphasizes the distinction between intent and knowledge in assessing the liability for the said criminal offense.
Section 299 of IPC defines culpable homicide requiring intention to kill and knowledge of likely consequences to determine the nature of offense. The court therefore recognized the act of Shahid as lacking intent to cause harm or death required to establish the conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder. The offense is thereafter reclassified under Section 304 Part II IPC highlighting the principle of knowledge of probable consequences. The risk posed by firing the weapon in a crowded space like marriage is seen as sufficient to establish culpability for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court’s interpretation therefore is based on the mental state of the accused to reflect punishment corresponding to the intent or knowledge of offender. The judgment heavily relies on judicial precedents to assert the reasoning of legal principles namely Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand. These precedents reinforced the principle of negligence involving firearms usage in public spaces attracting liability under Section 304 Part II IPC suggesting inherent danger in these actions. The Court found that reckless firing, even in absence of intent to kill, constitutes culpable homicide due to presence of knowledge.
The reliability of witness testimonies in criminal trials is observed as it is quite common for witnesses turning hostile during the trial. The fear or vested interests often create scepticism to rely on eyewitness accounts as seen in this case. It hinders the court functioning in ascertaining the truth and addressing justice accordingly.
The principle of proportionality in punishment is recognized in the judgment wherein the court reduced the charge from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II) considering Shahid’s actions as unintentional and devoid of premeditation, resulting in proportional sentencing.
The court serves as a precedent that is both legally sound and socially responsible by making a distinction between intent and knowledge guaranteeing proportionate sentencing. The case reaffirms the importance of using firearms responsibly.
CONCLUSION:
To conclude, the court made the right call in the Shahid Ali case by proportionating justice with nuanced legal interpretation. Indian criminal law is designed to recognize that not all wrongful acts demand the same degree of moral culpability. This distinction relied on intention and reckless acts ensures that the culpability depends on the nature and gravity of the offense. This judgment reaffirms the principles of proportional justice by addressing the lack of intent while acknowledging the presence of recklessness in the Act.
The Supreme Court decision to reclassify the offense under Section 304 Part II IPC deals with acknowledging the knowledge of offender as is likely to cause death but not intending to kill. The Court emphasized that celebratory firing, though categorically reckless, need not be carried out with the intention to kill or harm. This reclassification reduced the severity of punishment underscoring the absence of premediated intent in criminal law.
The judgment also balances against the moral accountability and the inherent nature of the act as it involves conscious disregard and negligence towards human safety. The Court highlighted the necessity for stricter regulation and law enforcement to curb practices like celebratory firing, that come at the cost of public safety.
Therefore, in my perspective, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma verdict in the Shahid Ali case accurately clarifies the understanding of intent and culpability under the Indian criminal law. It also balances the accountability of recognizing culpability under broader social responsibility frameworks.
REFERENCES:
Cases:
Shahid Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 SCC OnLine SC 259
Kunwar Pal v. State of Uttarakhand (2014) 12 SCC 434
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 14 SCC 184
Acts:
Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Arms Act, 1959
Sources:
2. Shahid Ali vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh | Citation: 2024 (SC) 222 – Pahuja Law Academy
This article is written by Amulya Turaga student of O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat; Intern at Legal Vidhya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
‘Social Media Head’ of Legal Vidhiya.
‘Case Analyst’ 
0 Comments