On Wednesday(3rd July),The Supreme Court of India has affirmed the conviction and life imprisonment of constable Surender Singh for murdering his brother-in-law inside a police station over two decades ago. The court rejected Singh’s self-defense claim, citing the victim’s alleged relationship with Singh’s wife as the motive behind the crime.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Wednesday(3rd July), The Supreme Court of India has upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of constable Surender Singh, who was found guilty of murdering his brother-in-law inside a police station over two decades ago. Terming the offence as “brazen,” the apex court dismissed the convict’s plea that the act was committed in self-defense.
The case revolved around the brutal killing of Singh’s brother-in-law, whom he shot dead with his service weapon. The motive behind the crime was the alleged illicit relationship between the victim and Singh’s wife. This high-profile case has seen extensive legal battles, culminating in the Supreme Court’s recent decision.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Rajesh Bindal delivered the judgment, rejecting Surender Singh’s defense. Singh had claimed that the victim had come to kill him, and the shooting was an act of self-defense. However, the bench found this argument unconvincing.
“The evidence unequivocally establishes this as a murder case. The choice of weapon, the multiple gunshots directed at the victim, and their fatal locations all indicate a deliberate intent to kill. The appellant succeeded in his objective to ensure the victim’s demise. There is no reasonable interpretation where this could be considered anything less, certainly not culpable homicide falling short of murder.”
-Justice Dhulia stated in the 23-page judgment.
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and concluded that there was no room for doubt about the intent and premeditation behind the crime. The court emphasized that the number of shots fired and the specific targeting of vital body parts indicated a clear intention to kill.
In their ruling, the judges also noted that the crime was committed within the confines of a police station, highlighting the gravity and audacity of the offence.
ALSO READ: ‘Upgrade Skills or Leave the Job’ | SC Rejects Bihar Teachers Petition Against ‘Competency Test’
“The facts clearly indicate that this is a bold murder case, occurring inside a police station in Delhi.”
– the court observed.
The top court refused to interfere with the earlier judgments passed by the trial court and the Delhi High Court. Both lower courts had found Singh guilty of murder under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court’s decision also vacated an interim order that had granted bail to the convict.
The appeal of a convict seeking bail in a high-profile murder case has been dismissed by the court.
The judgment reads-
“Therefore, this appeal is rejected. The interim bail granted to the appellant on April 2, 2012 is now revoked, and the appellant must surrender to the trial court within four weeks from today. A copy of this verdict will be forwarded to the trial court to enforce the appellant’s surrender and completion of the remaining sentence.”
The convict was embroiled in a tragic and complex case that involved the murder of his neighbor, who was also the husband of his first cousin. The prosecution revealed that the victim had an illicit relationship with the convict’s wife. On June 30, 2002, the victim went to the Mayur Vihar police station, where the convict was stationed.
According to eyewitness accounts, the victim and the convict were last seen having a conversation inside the police station. Moments later, witnesses, including other police personnel, observed the convict shoot the victim with his official 9-mm carbine.
The convict’s defense argued that the crime was committed in self-defense. Alternatively, they claimed that if self-defense was not accepted, the act was committed under grave and sudden provocation.
The convict’s plea stated-
“Put differently, the appellant could only be convicted for culpable homicide that does not amount to murder, if applicable.”
However, this plea was ultimately rejected by the court.
The court’s judgment emphasized the clarity and strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
“Collectively, these pieces of evidence are indisputable. The prosecution’s case is firmly established on this evidence. It unequivocally qualifies as murder. The motive (the deceased’s affair with the appellant’s wife, as admitted) and the commission of the crime at the police station clearly indicate that the appellant committed murder inside the police station.”
– the court noted.
The forensic evidence played a crucial role in securing the conviction.
The court detailed-
“The single firearm injury with blackening at the entry point indicates that the deceased was initially shot at from close range. The other injuries also align with the testimonies of the aforementioned eyewitnesses.”
