Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction of a CRPF constable for killing four colleagues. The Court ruled that harsh working conditions don’t justify such violent actions.
Bilaspur: Today, on June 26, the Chhattisgarh High Court recently upheld the life imprisonment sentence of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Constable who was convicted for murdering four of his fellow personnel.
The Court clearly stated that although armed forces work under stressful and harsh conditions, this cannot be used as an excuse to commit such a grave crime.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Grants Unnao Rape Survivor Final Chance to Respond on CRPF Security Removal
The case reached the High Court through an appeal filed by the convicted CRPF constable, Sant Kumar, against the judgment passed by the Special Court (Naxal), which had sentenced him to life in prison for killing four CRPF jawans and injuring another.
A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru firmly rejected the appeal.
The Bench observed,
“The working conditions of armed forces personnel can be extremely dangerous and deadly involving exposure to a variety of hazards both in combat and peace time situations… 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 further 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.”
In this case, Senior Advocate Fouzia Mirza along with Advocate Navin Shukla appeared on behalf of the Appellant, while Advocate Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, represented the State.
The incident took place inside the CRPF camp, where Sant Kumar allegedly took his service rifle from the subordinate officers’ rest room and opened fire on his colleagues.
According to the prosecution, there had been ongoing disputes between the appellant and the deceased over duty assignments.
On the day of the incident, he left his own rifle in his barrack and deliberately took another one, an AK-47, to carry out the attack. He ended up killing four CRPF personnel and injuring one.
The prosecution also revealed a disturbing statement allegedly made by the accused during questioning. When asked about the incident, he reportedly said that he had
“cleaned the filth of the Company and some more are required to be cleaned.”
The case also had multiple eyewitnesses, who were all members of the CRPF present at the same camp. One of them, Gajanand Sharma (PW-7), was an injured witness and his testimony played a major role in the case.
The Court observed,
“It is well settled that conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, even without corroboration, if the court finds the witness to be wholly reliable and trustworthy. The Court assesses the credibility of the witness, not just the quantity of witnesses.”
The Bench further stated,
“In the present case, there are number of eye witness being the members of the armed force, namely CRPF and were present at the Camp itself where the incident occurred. Further, 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.”
In his defense, the appellant claimed he was falsely accused because he had earlier raised his voice against alleged fake encounters committed by CRPF personnel.
He further argued that he was serving in an area heavily affected by naxalite violence and was under immense stress due to denial of leave. He claimed that this combination of mental pressure and unfair duty conditions caused him to lose control.
His lawyers submitted that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, meaning that the act was done in sudden anger without premeditation, and therefore, the conviction should be converted from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC.
The Court did not accept this argument and highlighted the lack of explanation from the appellant about how the four deceased persons were shot dead and one was injured when there was no external attack on the camp.
The judges remarked,
“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.”
The Bench also noted,
“The appellant was angry upon the deceased persons as they had complained that the appellant used to leave the post/camp and went out of the camp daily for unwanted reasons.” Additionally, the fact that the accused was found using two rifles suggested a level of planning. The Court commented, “The appellant was well aware of the consequences and ordinarily, a member of armed force is issued only one rifle 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.”
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Fouzia Mirza and Advocate Navin Shukla
Respondent: Advocate Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General
Cause Title:
Sant Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2025:CGHC:25748-DB
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More Reports Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
