‘Single gunshot injury’: Allahabad High Court spares cop’s killer from death penalty

“We are of the view that the appellant shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life for 25 years without a remission and therefore the sentence of death award to the appellant for offence under Section 302 (murder) IPC is accordingly, commuted rest of the sentence shall be served as per the sentence awarded by the trial court,” the order read.

Death penalty

According to the prosecution, in 2014, a police team had gone to arrest the accused at his residence in connection with a criminal case. When the officers attempted to apprehend him, he allegedly pulled out a pistol, threatened the police personnel and fired at the inspector, hitting him in the chest. The officer later succumbed to the gunshot injury at a hospital. The accused was overpowered and arrested at the spot.

Justices Ajay Bhanot and Avnish Saxena noted that eyewitnesses in the case had remained unshaken in their deposition.

The trial court had convicted him under sections 302 and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Arms Act and had sentenced him to death. The court had also imposed a penalty of two years of rigorous imprisonment for criminal intimidation and a three years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Sentence modified

The high court noted that eyewitnesses in the case had remained unshaken in their deposition before the trial court. It further noted that the investigating officer had conducted the probe with precision.

“We find that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is rightly held guilty of the offences under Sections 302,506 of IPC and under Sections 25,27(1) of Arms Act,” the court held.

The judges noted that though there was a slight inconsistency in the statement of the officer who conducted the inquest on the dead body, it was not material in nature, which could exterminate the prosecution case as he was not an eyewitness and only conducted the inquest, which clearly showed that the death of the inspector was due to the gunshot injury.

On the point of death sentence, the bench took into account the poor socio-economic background of the accused, noting that his father worked in the field of education, had limited financial means, and had to support six children.

After recording the conviction, the court had called for a report from the jail authorities about the accused over the years of his imprisonment. It recorded that the report did not show that he still possessed criminal behaviour but, instead, was found to be calm and quiet in nature. The court also noted that the incident appeared to have occurred in the heat of the moment.

The court, hence, upheld the conviction but commuted the death penalty imposed by the trial court to life imprisonment.