Supreme Court convicts Constable who opened fire at colleagues over Diwali mess food

The Supreme Court on Thursday restored the conviction of a constable who had opened fire on his colleagues with an AK-47 rifle over a dispute regarding food served at the mess on the Diwali night in 2010 [State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shamsher Singh]..A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti reversed the 2014 judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which had acquitted the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to murder) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.“The accused fired from his service weapon AK-47 and since he was a constable in the army, he was well aware that gunshot from such a weapon, if hits anyone will certainly result in causing death,” the apex court said in its judgment. .The accused, Shamsher Singh, was part of the 2nd Indian Reserve Battalion in Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. On November 5, 2010, after expressing dissatisfaction with the Diwali mess food, he opned fire at his colleagues using his service rifle.Head Constable Sanjeet Kumar sustained gunshot injuries to both his upper thighs and had to be hospitalised for over a month. The accused continued to fire even after the injured was taken away, but no further injuries occurred. He was eventually overpowered by fellow constables inside the dormitory..The trial court convicted Singh under Sections 307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. However, the High Court altered the conviction to one under Section 326 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt using dangerous weapons or means) and sentenced him to the period already undergone. The State then moved the Supreme Court in appeal.The top court set aside the High Court’s ruling and held that the intent to cause death need to be inferred not only from the nature of injuries but also from the weapon used and the context.“If hurt of any nature is caused and it is proved that there was intention or knowledge to cause death, Section 307 IPC would stand attracted,” the Court reiterated..However, considering the fact that the incident happened in a “rage of anger” and dates back to 2010, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone - around 1 year and 5 months."Taking into consideration the fact that the accused respondent was in discipline force, the incident is of 2010 and that it had happened in a rage of anger, but with predetermined mind, in the interest of justice we reduce the punishment to that of already undergone (about 1 year 5 months) in place of 7 years rigorous imprisonment," the Court concluded..The State was represented by Advocates Rajiv Kumar Sinha, Raj Kumar and Rajoday Satyjeet. Singh was represented by Advocates Asha Gopalan Nair, Nivedita Nair and Shashikant Pralhad Chaudhari. .[Read Judgment]