Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed an appeal filed under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The appellant, a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable, had challenged his conviction under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code along with provisions of the Arms Act. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment sentencing the appellant to four life imprisonments, observing that the offence involved deliberate and premeditated acts of homicide. It held that the working conditions or stress of armed force personnel cannot serve as justification for such actions. The Court concluded that there was no legal or factual error in the judgment of the trial court and upheld the conviction and sentence.

The appellant, a 35-year-old CRPF Constable, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (Naxal), Dantewada in Sessions Trial No. 104/2018 for killing four CRPF personnel and injuring one with firearms on 9 December 2017 inside a CRPF camp in Bijapur district. The charges included four counts under Section 302 IPC, one count under Section 307 IPC, and offences under Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for each murder count and rigorous imprisonment for other charges, with all sentences to run concurrently.

Also Read: Supreme Court Slams UP Jail Authorities For Unlawful Detention | Man Kept In Prison 28 Days Despite Release Order | Court Awards ₹5 Lakh Compensation And Orders Judicial Inquiry

According to the prosecution, the accused harboured resentment against his superior officers due to disagreements over duty allocations. On the date of the incident, he reportedly took an AK-47 rifle from the subordinate officers' rest room and opened fire inside the camp garden. The victims were identified as Sub Inspector Vicky Sharma, Sub Inspector Megh Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector Rajveer Singh, and Constable Shankar Rao Ghanta. Assistant Sub Inspector Gajanand Sharma survived the attack with bullet injuries.

The FIR was lodged based on the written report submitted by Assistant Commandant Rajeshwar Dubey. A crime scene map and postmortem reports were prepared. Investigators seized multiple items including the firearms, empty bullet shells, blood-soaked soil, and the accused's clothes. The ballistic and forensic reports were included in the investigation file.

During the trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses, including several CRPF personnel present during the incident. Key testimony came from injured eye-witness ASI Gajanand Sharma, who stated that the appellant fired upon the officers during routine camp activities. Several other personnel corroborated this version, identifying the appellant as the shooter.

The defence presented nine witnesses and relied on arguments that the appellant had been falsely implicated for exposing an earlier fake encounter. It was contended that the firearm in question was not allotted to the appellant and no ballistic evidence confirmed his involvement. The defence also argued that the appellant was under extreme stress due to denial of leave and acted in a fit of rage, falling within Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, making it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The Court rejected the defence plea, stating "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." It observed that "the level of discipline is much higher for the armed force personnel than an ordinary civilian."

On the credibility of the witnesses, the Court noted "the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt." It acknowledged the consistency and reliability of the injured witness, stating in "the sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight." Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated the value of injured eyewitness testimony.

The judgment stated that the appellant was carrying both an AK-47 and an AKM rifle during the incident, which "goes to suggest that he had premeditation for causing the crime in question."

It rejected the theory of false implication due to whistleblowing on the fake encounter, finding that "there is no explanation given by the appellant as to how the four persons came to be dead from bullet injuries and one personnel sustained injuries when there was no naxal attack on the camp."

Also Read: Madras High Court Appoints Father As Guardian After Noting Minor’s Clear Preference | Both Parents Found Equally Capable | Court Ensures Mother’s Visitation Rights

The Court dismissed the appeal, stating, "Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed." It directed that the appellant "shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.08.2024."

It further ordered, "Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentences to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General

Case Title: Sant Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:25748-DB

Case Number: CRA No. 1950 of 2024

Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru