SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 1921

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, R.N. MANJULA, JJ.
Vijay Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kalpakkam Police Station, Kanchipuram - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 451 of 2018
Decided on : 28-10-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :C.R. Malarvannan, Advocate
For the Respondent:M. Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor, Sharath Chandran, Advocate, Rajnish Pathiyil

Headnote:

Criminal procedure Code,1973 - Section 330 ,335(1) and 391 – Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 84 - Criminal Lunatics Act, 1800, - Enactment of Act IV of 1849 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. - Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 - Section 2(s) and 3 - Evidence Act - Section 105 - Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 –Person of unsound mind - Appellant was working as a Head Constable in Central Industrial Security Force and was posted in Atomic Power Plant during he reported to duty collected his weaponsmm - Carbine sub-machine gun magazines and bullets from armoury and was supposed to board CISF bus for getting dropped at duty point - CISF personnel who were changing shifts heard a noise followed by sudden sounds of firing in barracks which was in first floor - Almost immediately they saw appellant coming down staircase with his weapon - Before anyone could realise what had happened in barracks appellant opened fire randomly which resulted in death of Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspector and injuries to not examined of Police who were standing near parade ground - After indiscriminately opening fire appellant started pacing up and down parade ground frequently placing weapon onguard of honour platform and then re-arming himself – Whether accused was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, at time of commission of criminal act, incapable of knowing nature of act or that he was acting contrary to law - Held, Court, from totality of proved circumstances before it, entertains a reasonable doubt, judged from the stand point of an ordinary prudent man, that criminal act was committed by accused by reason of unsoundness of mind without knowing nature of act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law - learned Amicus Curiae submitted that and were given appointment on compassionate ground in C.I.S.F whereas S/o applied for a Constable post in C.I.S.F. but failed in his three attempts and therefore he was not granted appointment on compassionate ground – Court direct Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F. D.A.E and Inspector of Police Station to liaise with two injured C.I.S.F. personnel and widows of deceased trio and produce them before Secretary District Legal Services Authority who shall ensure that aforesaid compensations are paid by Government of Tamil Nadu as directed by us - Court by submitting appellant’s medical records from Central with officials of IMH – Court would have skimmed over medical records of appellant – Court also owe our thanks to counsel for the C.I.S.F., for his able assistance by candidly placing before us all available materials including service particulars of deceased trio and injured duo in case - Criminal appeal allowed

JUDGMENT :

P.N. Prakash, J.

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed u/s. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 09.04.2018 passed in S.C.No.242 of 2015 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpet.)

1. This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpet, in S.C. No.242 of 2015.

2. The prosecution story runs thus:

2.1 The appellant was working as a Head Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (for brevity “the CISF”) and was posted in the Kalpakkam Atomic Power Plant during October 2014. On 08.10.2014, around 4.00 a.m., he reported to duty, collected his weapons, viz., a 9 mm. carbine sub-machine gun (MO-1), 2 magazines and 60 numbers of 9 mm. bullets from the armoury and was supposed to board the CISF bus for getting dropped at the duty point. Around 4.50 a.m., the CISF personnel who were changing shifts, heard a noise followed by sudden sounds of firing in the barracks which was in the first floor. Almost immediately, they saw the appellant coming down the staircase with his weapon. Before anyone could realise what had happened in the barracks, the appellant opened fire randomly, which resulted in the death of Subburaj (D2), Head Constable and Ganesan (D3), Assistant Sub-Inspector and injuries to Govardhana Prasad (not examined) and Pratap Singh (PW-19), Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who were standing near the parade ground. After indiscriminately opening fire, the appellant started pacing up and down the parade ground, frequently placing the weapon on the guard of honour platform and then re-arming himself. Those persons who were then around the appellant, feared to go anywhere near him. While so, Shoba (PW-4), Inspector of Police, CISF, who was on her morning walk in the parade ground, heard the firing noise and proceeded to the spot. She confronted the appellant face to face and ordered him to lay down the weapon.

2.2 On her orders, the appellant meekly laid down the weapon and surrendered. He was taken into custody by the CISF personnel. When the CISF personnel went to the barracks in the first floor, they found Mohan Singh (D1), Head Constable, dead.

2.3 All the aforesaid five CISF personnel were rushed to the Department of Atomic Energy Hospital, Kalpakkam, where Mohan Singh (D1), Subburaj (D2) and Ganesan (D3) were declared as ‘brought dead’ by Dr.Ezhilarasan (PW-33) vide Accident Register copies Exs.P22, P23 and P24 pertaining to Mohan Singh (D1), Subburaj (D2) and Ganesan (D3), respectively.

2.4 Dr.Ezhilarasan (PW-33) examined Pratap Singh (PW-19), who had sustained gunshot injuries and Govardhana Prasad, who had suffered a fracture while trying to flee from the line of fire, and after making entries in the Accident Registers (Exs.P25 and P26), he referred them to Chettinad Hospital and Research Institute, Kelambakkam, for further treatment.

2.5 On a complaint (Ex.P1) lodged by Manikandan (PW-1), Head Constable, CISF, who was on patrol duty at the relevant point of time, Chandrasekaran (PW-36), Sub-Inspector of Police, E4 Kalpakkam Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.241 of 2014 on 08.10.2014 at 07.00 a.m. for the offences under Sections 307 and 302 IPC against the appellant and prepared the printed First Information Report (Ex.P31), which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 12.05 p.m. on the same day, as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.

2.6 Investigation of the case was taken over by Rajangam (PW-39), Inspector of Police, Kalpakkam Police Station (for brevity “the Investigating Officer”), who went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and rough sketch (Ex.P41) in respect of the place where Mohan Singh (D1) had fallen.

2.7 Similarly, the Investigating Officer (PW-39) prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P5) and rough sketch (Ex.P42) at the place where the other two deceased ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top