Supreme Court upholds conviction of army man who fired at colleagues over mess food
The apex court in their ruling said that the man was aware that his actions could lead to bodily injury and even death.
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of an army man for firing at his colleagues with a service weapon after being dissatisfied with the food served at the mess.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S V N Bhatti set aside the 2014 judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which had acquitted the accused under Section 307 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
"The facts and circumstances reveal that the accused in rage had fired indiscriminately with his service weapon AK-47 knowing fully well that the bullets may cause bodily injury to any of his colleagues, which further may in all probability cause death," the court said.
The bench in its April 17 verdict added that the incident appeared to have been carried out by the accused, a constable, with the intention of causing bodily injury to the colleagues, fully knowing that such injury would likely to cause death.
Also Read: Homebuyers have a right to protest peacefully against builders, rules Supreme Court
"There is no denial of the fact that the injured had sustained four injuries, two each on both the upper thighs and they were of grievous nature. The injuries may not be life threatening, but it leaves no doubt that there was intention to cause death," it added.
The bench said the high court overlooked the crucial aspects in acquitting the accused from the offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Also Read: ‘Article 142 has become a nuclear missile’: VP Dhankhar criticises Supreme Court verdict
"The judgment and orders of the high court dated July 14, 2014 and July 28, 2014 cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside, restoring the judgment and order of the trial court dated March 20, 2013," it held.
The top court, however, observed no minimum sentence was prescribed under IPC Section 307 considering the fact that the accused was in "discipline force", and the incident was of 2010, and he did it "in a rage" but with a predetermined mind.
"In the interest of justice we reduce the punishment to that of already undergone in place of seven years rigorous imprisonment," the bench said.
