The death of Derek Singh

Issue I.: whether the act of Krishna Kumar amounted to culpable homicide u/s 299, murder u/s 300, or
causing death by negligence under s. 304A?

Krishna Kumar had thought of celebrating his brother’s birthday by firing 30 bullets from his gun. He
wanted to celebrate in a grand and unique way, hence such an act.

He knew that his brother wore bullet proof jacket every day at every time except while sleeping. (Fact)

So he naturally presumed that his brother would be wearing his jacket in the morning and hence he
went on to shoot him with his gun. (Presumption)

However, as his brother did not wear the jacket on the particular day, Derek Singh died. (Fact)

However, such an act cannot be termed as culpable homicide amounting to murder as there was neither
intention of causing murder not knowledge that such an act may cause death.

There was no intention to cause the death is evident from the fact that Krishna Kumar wanted to
celebrate his brother’s birthday is a unique manner. And there was no knowledge that such an act may
cause the death is evident from the fact that since his brother wore a bullet-proof jacket all the time, he
could not be harmed by shooting.

In order to be encompassed the protection under section 304-A there should be neither intention nor
knowledge to cause death. When any of these two elements is found to be present, section 304-A has
no application.1 An offence under section 304-A is committed either by doing a rash act or a negligent
act.

Speech given by Krishna Kumar and subsequent support of Sidhharth Singh

Issue II.: whether the speech rendered by Krishna Kumar and the acts of Sidharth sing amounted to
sedition under s. 124A, 153, 159?

Although the legal provision states that a person has committed sedition if he says something or does
something which may bring hatred or contempt or excites disaffection towards the Government
established by law, however, this section should be so construed as to limit their application to acts
involving intention or tendency to create disorder or disturbance of law and order or incitement to
violence.2

1
Shankar Narayan bhandolkar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2004 SC 1966
2
Kedarnath singh v State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
The death of Rita Dey

Issue III.: whether the three women are guilty of dowry death under s. 304B, 498A, 320, 322, 300, ?

The injury and subsequent death of the security guards by act of Krishna Kumar

Issue IV.: Whether the act of injuring the guards amounted to culpable homicide in all cases under s.
300, 301?

The Act by Krishna Kumar to injure/kill the in-laws of Rita Dey

Issue V.: Whether the act of injuring the security guards with intent to break into the house of the in-
laws amounted to attempt to commit culpable homicide u/s 308, criminal force under s. 350, assault
under s. 351, criminal trespass under s. 441, house trespass u/s 442, lurking house trespass by night
u/s 444, house breaking by night u/s 446, 456, 457, 458, 459,

The machine gun of Krishna Kumar

Issue VI.: Whether the possession of the machine gun contravened the provisions of the Arms Act,
1559?

s. 7 of the Arms Act prevents any person to be in possession of any prohibited arms unless he has been
specially authorized by the Central government to possess such weapon.

s. 2(i) defines prohibited arms as(i)firearms so designed or adapted that, if

pressure is applied to the trigger, missiles continue to be dis-charged until
pressure is removed from the trigger or the magazine containing the missiles
is empty,
or
(ii) weapons of any description designed or adapted for the discharge of any
noxious liquid, gas or other such thing, and includes artillery, anti-
aircraft and anti-tank firearms and such other arms as the Central Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify to be prohibited arms;

By definition, the machine gun of Krishna Kumar hence falls under the category of prohibited arms.
Dwelling on the presumption that no special permission or authorisation was given to Krishna Kumar for
carrying or possessing such a weapon, the presence of such machine gun in the possession of Krishna
Kumar was illegal. (Presumption)
A mitigating factor in this respect may be cited that since his brother was a high-profile politician who
was a terrorist target, Krishna may have had the firearm for self-protection. (presumption)
However, it has been explicitly laid down in the Act that no person in any circumstance be in possession
of such a weapon unless and until he has been specially authorised by the Central Government.