Stressful Service Conditions Of CRPF Personnel In Naxal Area Can't Justify Murder Of Colleagues: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Conviction

The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Constable who, nursing a grudge over duty allotment that deprived him of leave, opened fire on his colleagues, resulting in the death of four and injury to one.Commenting that long working hours without leave in a strenuous naxal infested environment does not warrant murder of fellow comrades, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed,“The working conditions of armed forces personnel can be extremely dangerous and deadly involving exposure to variety of hazards both in combat and peace time situations. These hazards can lead to both immediate and long-term health problems, injuries, and even fatalities. However, the level of discipline is much higher for the armed force personnel than an ordinary civilian. They are adequately trained to face all sorts of pressures. Long working hours without leave and difficult environment does not give right to any person to vent his anger by causing death of his own colleagues.”The Court added,“The appellant, being a member of armed force was responsible for the security and safety of the people of the area from the naxalites but instead of performing his duty, the appellant took a drastic measure by opening fire indiscriminately with two assault rifles upon the fellow members, which, by no stretch of imagination can fall under Section 304 Part I or II of the IPC. The appellant was well aware of the consequences and ordinarily, a member of armed force is issued only one rifles but the appellant was carrying two rifles at a time and had used both the rifles which goes to suggest that he had premeditation for causing the crime in question.”Facts:The Court was dealing with an appeal filed under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, challenging the conviction order (impugned order) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (Naxal), Dantewada (Trial Court), whereby Constable Sant Kumar (appellant) was convicted under Section 302, 307 of IPC and Section 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act.There was a prevailing rivalry between the appellant and Sub-Inspector Vicky Sharma, both posted in CRPF 168th Battalion, regarding allotment of duty which deprived the appellant of leave. On the date of the incident, the appellant kept his service rifle in his barrack and went to the subordinate officers' rest room, where he took his service rifle AK-47 and fired indiscriminately at Sub-Inspector Vicky Sharma and three other CRPF personnel. Assistant Sub-Inspector Gajanand Sharma (PW7), who was working inside the camp garden, was also injured but managed to escape.After considering the evidence on record, including the testimony of PW7- the injured eye-witness, the Trial Court vide the impugned order convicted the appellant and sentenced him accordingly. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the appellant approached the High Court.Submissions:It was the case of the appellant that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate that there was no evidence establishing that the AK-47, through which the firing was done, was allotted to the appellant, and neither was a ballistic report produced which could establish that the bullets shot were from the appellant's allotted rifle. It was further contended that the appellant was being falsely implicated as he had raised voice against a fake encounter of a villager by CRPF personnel. Lastly, it was submitted that the case of the appellant attracts Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC, on account of mounting stress and anger by working in a highly strenuous naxal infested area without leave, which made the appellant lose control over himself and commit the said crime under heat of passion and anger.On the contrary, the State supported the conviction rendered by the Trial Court.Court's Findings:With respect to the veracity of the testimony of PW7, the injured eyewitness, the Court referred to Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [2023 SCC OnLine SC 355], where the Supreme Court held that the testimony of an injured eye witness cannot be discredited unless there are material contradictions. In a similar vein, the Division Bench held,“… in the present case, Gajanand Sharma (PW-7) is the injured eye witness and his deposition would be of much relevance. The sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight. Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility. If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence.”Moreover, in relation to the contention that the appellant was being falsely implicated as he had raised voice against an illegal killing, the Court observed,“…there is no explanation given by the...

Stressful Service Conditions Of CRPF Personnel In Naxal Area Can't Justify Murder Of Colleagues: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Conviction

Saahas Arora

Tags