Millennium Post

Cop gets life term for killing fellow policeman

Firing and killing a fellow cop has landed a Delhi Police constable in jail for life, with a court here rejecting his claim that it was an accident and saying a trained policeman is expected to take “extra care” while handling a gun.

Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Yadav handed down the jail term to constable Sunil while holding him guilty of murder under section 302 of the IPC. According to the prosecution, the incident took place at Malviya Nagar police line here on May 7, 2012 when the accused cop allegedly fired a self-loading rifle at victim constable Dinesh, killing him. The accused claimed to have fired it accidentally while putting the gun away.

The court, however, rejected the claim saying it was an excuse which could be used by a layman and not a trained cop.

“It should be kept in mind that accused, at the time of incident, was posted in Delhi Police as Constable. Therefore, he must have been trained as to how to handle a gun, whether it is loaded or unloaded.

“A layman can take the excuse that he was not aware that the gun was loaded or not. However, a trained police official is expected to take extra care while handling the gun.Therefore, the defence of accused that he fired the gun accidentally is liable to be rejected,” the judge said.

The court, which also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on the accused, said he took contradictory stands during trial by denying the allegation completely on one hand and saying he had fired accidentally on the other.

However, it refused to award him death sentence saying it did not fall in the ‘rarest of rare’ category as he did not exhibit extreme brutality.

“One finds that convict did not exhibit extreme brutality or cruelty while committing the crime. When the conduct and behaviour of convicts before and after the murder and the manner of committing the crime is analysed, one does not find same to be so unusual or extra-ordinary as warranting death penalty,” it said.

While deciding the case, the court relied on testimonies of four police constables, who were eye witnesses to the incident, and said in such a case, motive of crime was “irrelevant”.
Next Story
Share it