The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction of a CRPF constable in a 2017 multiple homicide case inside a battalion camp, reiterating that the testimony of an injured eyewitness carries high evidentiary value and cannot be dismissed without substantial contradictions. The Court affirmed that minor inconsistencies do not render such testimony unreliable.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed the criminal appeal (CRA No. 1950 of 2024) filed by appellant Sant Kumar, a constable of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), challenging his conviction under Section 302 IPC (four counts), Section 307 IPC, and Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act.
Background
The incident occurred on December 9, 2017, at around 4:30 p.m. inside the CRPF 168th Battalion camp at Basaguda, Bijapur district. The appellant was accused of opening fire with his service rifle and killing four colleagues—Sub Inspector Vicky Sharma, Sub Inspector Megh Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector Rajveer Singh, and Constable Shankar Rao Ghanta. He also allegedly caused firearm injuries to ASI Gajanand Sharma, who survived.
Following a written complaint by Assistant Commandant Rajeshwar Dubey (PW-1), an FIR was registered, and after investigation, charges were framed under Sections 302 (four times), 307 IPC, and Arms Act provisions. The trial court convicted the appellant and awarded him multiple sentences, including four life imprisonments, to run concurrently.
Arguments Before the High Court
Senior Advocate Ms. Fouzia Mirza, representing the appellant, argued that there was no ballistic evidence connecting the rifle used in the firing to the appellant and claimed he had been falsely implicated for protesting an earlier alleged fake encounter. It was submitted that the firing occurred in a state of frustration, and even if proven, the act should fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Deputy Advocate General Mr. Shashank Thakur, appearing for the State, countered that the prosecution had produced overwhelming evidence, including an injured eyewitness and multiple other CRPF personnel. He asserted that the incident was premeditated and the trial court had rightly convicted the appellant.
Court’s Analysis
The Court emphasized that:
“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.”
The Court relied on the statement of ASI Gajanand Sharma (PW-7), who was present during the incident and received three bullet injuries. He deposed that he saw the appellant firing indiscriminately at the deceased officers and was himself shot while attempting to flee.
Further, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra (2023 SCC OnLine SC 355), affirming that injured eyewitness testimony commands greater evidentiary value and should not be discarded lightly.
The Court also rejected the appellant’s version that he was falsely framed after objecting to a previous operation. It noted that there was no evidence of any naxal attack on the camp, and the injuries and deaths were clearly attributable to internal gunfire. The motive—anger over leave denial and duty assignments—was supported by witness statements.
Conclusion
The Court concluded:
“The appellant, being a member of armed force, was responsible for the security and safety of the people… Instead of performing his duty, he took a drastic measure by opening fire indiscriminately with two assault rifles upon fellow members, which by no stretch of imagination can fall under Section 304 Part I or II of the IPC.”
Holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Special Court (Naxal), Dantewada.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sant Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh
Case No.: CRA No. 1950 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
