Death Sentence to Railway Police Constable: Jharkhand High Court.

The Jharkhand High Court has commuted the death sentence of a Railway police constable who fatally shot three members of a neighbor’s family over a dispute regarding unpaid dues for milk. The court held that the constable’s use of a service pistol rendered the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, unsustainable.

Case Overview

• Background: The case arose from a Sessions Court judgment that sentenced the constable to death under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempted murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The incident involved the constable shooting and killing the informant’s parents and sister, while also injuring the informant and another sister.
• Defense Arguments: The defense argued that the trial court failed to consider important Supreme Court guidelines regarding death sentences, which stress evaluating the crime’s gravity, the defendant’s potential for reform, and the proportionality of the punishment. They noted the absence of prior enmity, lack of premeditation, and that the act was a momentary emotional response. The appellant, aged 26 with a clean service record, was described as having acted impulsively during a dispute over unpaid milk.
• State’s Position: The State justified the death sentence, citing the extreme cruelty of using a service weapon against an unarmed family, leading to three deaths and serious injuries. They argued that the severity of the crime outweighed any mitigating factors.

Court’s Findings

• Death Penalty Rationale: The court reiterated that the death penalty is reserved for the “rarest of rare cases.” It noted the absence of preplanning and past enmity, emphasizing that the crime was the result of emotional disturbance rather than a calculated act.
• Sentence Commutation: Ultimately, the court commuted the death sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a minimum of 25 years without remission and imposed a fine of ₹10,000 for the murder charge under Section 302 of the IPC. The conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act was set aside.

This ruling reflects a nuanced consideration of the factors surrounding the crime, balancing the need for justice with the principles of rehabilitation and proportionality in sentencing.

Disclaimer: (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the KanoonKiBaat staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Source Link