Stating that “the accused is a threat and menace to the society”, the Rewari district court sentenced a man to “death penalty” for murdering a sub-inspector of Haryana Police in 2018. The court also clarified that death penalty awarded to the convict is subject to confirmation of high court. The convict was told that he can file an appeal against the judgment and quantum of sentence within the statutory period.
The court of Dr Sushil Kumar Garg, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rewari, sentenced convict Naresh Kumar for “death penalty” under Section 302 (murder). Naresh has also been sentenced to 10-year-imprisonment under Section 307 (attempt to murder), two-year-imprisonment under Section 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of IPC, three-year-imprisonment under Section 25 of the Arms Act and another five-year-imprisonment under Section 28 of the Arms Act. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
As per the prosecution, a murder FIR was registered against Naresh, a resident of Kharkhara (Haryana), on October 31, 2018. On November 15, 2018, information was received that one Naresh Kumar was roaming in the industrial area of Dharuhera. Teams were formed and a hunt was launched to nab him. Another tip of was received that Naresh was seen near Bharat Petrol Pump on Alwar bypass road. When police teams reached the spot, Naresh opened fire and SI Ranbir Singh suffered bullet injuries on his stomach. He later succumbed to injuries.
However, Kumar was nabbed and weapons were recovered from him. On interrogation, Kumar revealed the involvement of one Sanjeev Kumar, who sold .32 bore pistol along with 20 live cartridges of the same bore to him without permit or licence. He confessed that they both with help from co-accused Sudhir Kumar murdered S-I Ranbir Singh.
During the trial, the defense counsel argued that S-I Ranbir Singh died due to bullet injuries inflicted by his colleagues and that they have foisted the present case on Naresh.
However, the court of Dr Garg, after hearing the arguments, said that the prosecution has been able to show that the accused is not that simple a person. Holding Naresh guilty, the court said, “All these circumstances, taken cumulatively, form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the same are consistent only with the guilt of the accused Naresh and totally inconsistent with his innocence.” The court, however, acquitted Sanjeev and Sudhir as there was no evidence of their connection with Naresh.
While pronouncing the order, the court said, “Life of an innocent person was snuffed out simply because he was discharging his public duty and he along with the other members of the police force had tried to nab him as he wanted in another case of murder committed by accused/convict Naresh. Mobocracy and violent attacks on innocent citizens have no place in a democracy like ours that is governed by rule of law and sound Constitutional norms. The pillars of democracy cannot be allowed to be crushed in this manner.” The Court further said that awarding of life imprisonment is rule and death sentence is exception. It is, therefore, necessary to examine as to whether case in hand is of nature where there is no alternative other than to award death sentence.
Citing a case of the Supreme Court, the court said, “The normal rule is that the offence of murder shall be punished with sentence of life imprisonment. However, the court can depart from the normal rule and impose the sentence of death only if the court is satisfied that there are special reasons for doing so. The act committed by the accused/convict is inhuman and condemnable. If I consider the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of crime, age and antecedents of the accused/convict, it cannot be said that the sentence of life imprisonment is adequate and calls for death sentence is not necessary.”
“I have tried to find out mitigating circumstances so as to award life imprisonment to the accused but keeping in view his conduct that he was habitual in committing the heinous offences of murder…The accused is a threat and menace to the society and awarding of life imprisonment to the accused would not be justified under any of the circumstances”, the Court added.
