A Delhi court on Saturday sentenced Bihar BJP MLA Raju Kumar Singh to simple imprisonment for four years for the death of a woman in celebratory firing in 2018, with the judge slamming “gun culture” and saying “we need neither a Singham nor a Pushpa in a state governed by the rule of law”.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne also slapped a fine of Rs 25 lakh on the legislator from Bihar’s Sahebganj who was convicted for the death of a guest, Archana Gupta, at a New Year’s party at a farmhouse in Fatehpur Beri here on the night of December 31, 2018. The amount will be paid as compensation.
In the 34-page verdict, the court refused to grant leniency, saying Singh was apparently drunk on the arrogance of power and seemingly wanted to project his status by firing. It said such actions encourage an ecosystem of illicit firearms and have led to the entry of ‘Bahubalis’ in politics.
“We need neither a Singham nor a Pushpa in a state governed by the rule of law. The brazen act of firing by Raju Kumar Singh was, however, an inspiration to both such aspirations,” the judge said while referring to the two protagonists in popular films who are on opposite sides of the law and indulge in a brazen display of violence.
Singh was convicted last month under Section 304 part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder with knowledge) of the IPC and under provisions of the Arms Act relating to contravention of licence conditions.
The provision provides for a maximum imprisonment of ten years or fine, or both.
The court said, “Past public service does not by itself entitle a convict to a token sentence, as for instance – one or two years. Public office, especially an elected office, is an office of honour and public trust, and such honour and trust are vitiated and violated when such public representative commits a grave criminal offence.”
The court said the only beginning point for consideration of aggravation or mitigation can be the mid-point of the range of punishment.
The court underlined that differential and preferential treatment in the matter of sentence cannot be accorded to the convict only because he is an MLA.
“The court is of the satisfaction that a sentence of four years upon the convict would be an apposite and suitably stringent punishment for the commission of the offence under section 304 (Part II),” Judge Gogne said.
He said a punishment of four years and the time it makes available to the convict for reflection and reform should, in the estimation of the court, serve as a sentence proportional to the offence and of potent deterrent value against similar acts of reckless firing by politicians and others alike in social functions.
“The court deems it appropriate that a sentence of two months be imposed on the convict under section 30 of the Arms Act,” the judge added. He said that the sentences would run consecutively.
He observed that as certain states in India are known to harbour illicit production facilities for local firearms, the sight of an MLA acting like a strong man by untrammelled use of firearms, even on social occasions, encourages an ecosystem of illicit firearms.
“In fact, many an aspiring gang leader or strong man has stepped into politics in our nation on the strength of the gun, earning thereby the notorious sobriquet of Bahubali,” the judge said.
He noted that the convict’s first act of celebratory firing occurred just before the hour of the new year being struck, while he did the second round of firing after the guests had exchanged New Year wishes on the stroke of midnight.
“The act of continuous firing by the convict reflected a callous disregard for human life and acts as an aggravating circumstance,” the judge said.
“While the firearm of the convict was a licensed weapon, his act of firing serves to legitimise a gun culture which is predicated on muscular assertion of power, and largely male dominance,” he added.
The court also trashed Singh’s plea for release on probation.
It said that being in a representative public office and carrying the responsibility of upholding not only the statutory order but also the constitutional scheme, the proved act of wanton firing by Singh in a party, thereby causing the demise of a guest, is criminal behaviour completely in dissonance with his position as a public servant.
It said, “The court may next notice that the convict fired upon multiple occasions and was in fact apprehended only on the run while in possession of the pistol in question. Subsequently, a large number of bullets from various firearms were found at his residence, and these circumstances too favour the denial of probation to the convict.”
The court observed that the convict does come across as having had scant regard for the safety of even his own kith and kin in firing repeatedly from a firearm in the midst of a merry gathering of people celebrating the new year.
It said the grave nature of the offence is not offset by the circumstance of the victim being taken in the car of the convict.
“Probation shall not be granted only because it can be granted. The court is of the assessment that misplaced leniency towards a popular representative, by way of release on probation, risks conveying a demoralising message to the constituents of the convicted MLA and the public at large,” the court said.
It said the next facet of aggravation relates to the unfortunate outcome of the offence, where the victim, Archana Gupta, aged 45 years, a guest of the family of the convict himself, who was accompanied to the party by her husband and daughter died as a consequence of the criminal act by the convict, causing the tragic and irreversible disruption of the peace and future of an entire family.
Regarding the aspect of compensation to the victim’s family, the court said that it must decide upon a quantum of compensation which is adequate and also honourable and that the financial capacity of the convict is a yardstick of equivalence with the prospects of life lost by the victim.
Noting the report on Singh’s assets, the court said he was a prosperous man, receiving not merely a salary from the government but also holding a stake in a company that runs a cold storage and owns four acres of land, as well as commercial space in Delhi and Bihar.
It said, besides, the convict can be presumed to be drawing a steady income from his ownership of a petrol pump in Bihar and that he also owns another building in Bihar and a joint-ownership guesthouse on four acres of land.
“In sum, the convict is a land and building owner apart from possessing multiple business interests and deriving varied rental income. In this scenario, the court finds him capable of paying an appropriate and adequate compensation to the family of the victim,” the court said.
It said that though no amount of compensation can truly redress the loss of life and future prospects, it had been assessed that a compensation amount of Rs 25 lakhs would be appropriate compensation to be paid by the convict to the family of the victim.
