Under Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof that the accused’s case falls within the general exception is upon the accused himself: Supreme Court upholds life sentence for Police Guard convicted of brazen murder inside Delhi police station
Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia & Rajesh Bindal [03-07-2024]

Read Order: SURENDER SINGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 597 OF 2012]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, July 4, 2023: The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of Surender Singh, a police guard who was convicted of killing a man named Satish at the Mayur Vihar Police Station in Delhi on June 30, 2002. The Apex Court upheld Singh's conviction and life sentence for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the prosecution, Satish, who was married to Singh's first cousin, was having an illicit relationship with Singh's wife. On the day of the incident, Singh murdered Satish inside the police station while on duty, using his official 9 mm carbine. The post-mortem revealed that Satish's body had 17 ante-mortem injuries from 8-9 gunshots. One entry wound had blackening, indicating it was fired at point-blank range.

Dismissing Singh's claims of self-defense and grave and sudden provocation by the victim, the Supreme Court stated that “these arguments do not hold any ground and most importantly there is not even an iota of evidence to sustain this bizarre line of defence”.

 The Bench further held that "The plea of self-defence taken by the accused/appellant is childish to say the least, in the light of the facts of the case, and on the weight of the evidence of the prosecution”.

The Top Court, in its judgement, held that under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof that the accused’s case falls within the general exception is upon the accused himself. The Bench cited the Supreme Court judgement in Salim Zia v. State of U.P. to hold that this burden of proof though is not as onerous as the burden of proof beyond all reasonable doubts which is on the prosecution, nevertheless some degree of reasonable satisfaction has to be established by the defence, when this plea is taken.

“In the case at hand, the defence has not been able to establish a case of private defence by any evidence. There is no evidence on this aspect and therefore this plea was rightly rejected by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court,” the Top Court said.

It further held that the defence has not even been able to discharge its burden by showing that it is a case of grave and sudden provocation, though an attempt was made by the defence to bring the case under Exception I to Section 300 IPC.

“In the present case on every possible count the case is nothing but a case of murder. The nature of weapon used; the number of gun shots fired at the deceased; the part of the body where gun shots are fired, all point towards the fact that the appellant was determined to kill the deceased. Ultimately, he achieved his task and made sure that the deceased is dead. By no stretch of logic is it a case of any lesser magnitude, and definitely not culpable homicide not amounting to murder,” the Bench observed.

Finding no reason to interfere with the lower courts' judgments, the Supreme Court dismissed Singh's appeal and ordered him to surrender