The appellant challenged the High Court's decision upholding his conviction and sentences under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant, a police guard, was accused of murdering a man inside a police station in Delhi. The prosecution claimed that the deceased had an illicit relationship with the appellant's wife, which led to the murder. Multiple eyewitnesses, including police personnel, and forensic evidence supported the prosecution's case. The appellant argued self-defense and grave provocation, but the court found these defenses unconvincing and upheld the conviction.

Background

1. Appellant's Challenge: The appellant challenged the High Court's decision upholding his conviction and sentences by the Trial Court under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.
2. Incident Overview: The case involved a murder committed inside a police station in Delhi, where the appellant was on duty as a police guard.

Case Details

3. Relationship Between Appellant and Deceased: The deceased was married to the appellant’s first cousin and had an alleged illicit relationship with the appellant’s wife.
4. Eyewitness Accounts: Multiple witnesses saw the appellant and the deceased conversing before the appellant shot the deceased with his official weapon.

FIR and Investigation

5. FIR and Initial Statements: An FIR was lodged based on the testimony of PW-2, a head constable who witnessed the incident and was injured.
6. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution examined 27 witnesses, and the accused provided his statement under Section 313 CrPC.

Defense and Court Observations

7. Defense Witnesses: The prosecution's inclusion of the appellant's brother (PW-6) and wife (PW-25) as witnesses inadvertently supported the defense's claim that the deceased intended to kill the appellant.
8. Appellant's Statement: The appellant claimed self-defense and grave provocation, arguing that the deceased attempted to kill him and the shooting was accidental during a scuffle.

Prosecution's Case

9. Credibility of PW-2: PW-2’s consistent testimony was crucial, supported by other police personnel present during the incident.
10. Deferred Cross-Examination: The court noted the lengthy adjournment before PW-2's cross-examination and cautioned against such practices to ensure fair trials.

Medical Evidence and Corroboration

14. Medical Examination of PW-2 and Deceased: PW-19, the medical officer, confirmed injuries on PW-2 and multiple bullet wounds on the deceased’s body.
15. Supporting Witnesses: PW-1, PW-11, and PW-17 corroborated PW-2's account, describing the sequence of events and the appellant's actions.

Forensic Evidence

17. Post-Mortem Findings: The post-mortem revealed 17 bullet injuries on the deceased, supporting the prosecution's case of intentional murder.
18. Bullet Trajectories: Forensic evidence indicated the deceased was shot from both front and back while attempting to escape.

Court's Conclusion

19. Prosecution's Unassailable Evidence: The overwhelming evidence pointed to a premeditated murder motivated by the deceased’s affair with the appellant’s wife.
20. Rejection of Self-Defense: The court found no evidence to support the appellant's self-defense claim.
21. Burden of Proof: Under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proving self-defense lies with the accused, which the appellant failed to do.

Dismissal of Grave Provocation

24. Provocation Argument: The defense argued grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, but the court found no credible evidence supporting this claim.
25. Legal Standards for Provocation: The court referenced previous cases, emphasizing the need for provocation to be severe enough to deprive a reasonable person of self-control, which was not proven in this case.

Conclusion

• Upholding Conviction: The court upheld the appellant's conviction and sentences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, dismissing his defenses as unconvincing.