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. Special Judge Vishal Gogne also imposed a fine of Rs 25 lakh on the legislator from Bihar's Sahebganj, directing that the amount be paid as compensation to the family of the victim, Archana Gupta. Gupta died at a New Year's party at a farmhouse in Fatehpur Beri on the night of December 31, 2018.
Court Condemns Gun Culture and Arrogance of Power
In the 34-page verdict, the court refused to grant leniency, stating that Singh was apparently drunk on the arrogance of power and seemingly wanted to project his status by firing. The judge slammed “gun culture,” saying, “We need neither a Singham nor a Pushpa in a state governed by the rule of law.” The reference to the two popular film protagonists, who are on opposite sides of the law and indulge in a brazen display of violence, underscored the court's disapproval of such behavior.
Singh was convicted last month under Section 304 part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder with knowledge) of the Indian Penal Code 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.
No Leniency for Elected Representative
The court emphasized that past public service does not entitle a convict to a token sentence. “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 judge said. The court noted that 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.
Deterrent Sentence and Consecutive Terms
The judge stated that a punishment of four years and the time it makes available for reflection and reform should 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. Additionally, the court imposed a sentence of two months under Section 30 of the Arms Act, specifying that the sentences would run consecutively.
The court 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.
Callous Disregard for Human Life
The judge noted that Singh’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.”
Probation Denied
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. The court noted that Singh fired upon multiple occasions and was 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.
The court observed that the convict 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. 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.
Compensation to Victim's Family
Regarding compensation, the court said it must decide upon a quantum which is adequate and honourable, and that the financial capacity of the convict is a yardstick of equivalence with the prospects of life lost. Noting the report on Singh’s assets, the court said he was a prosperous man, receiving a salary from the government, holding a stake in a company that runs a cold storage, owning four acres of land, commercial space in Delhi and Bihar, a petrol pump in Bihar, 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 assessed that a compensation amount of Rs 25 lakhs would be appropriate.
Impact on Victim's Family
The court noted that the victim, Archana Gupta, aged 45 years, was a guest of the family of the convict himself, accompanied to the party by her husband and daughter. Her death caused the tragic and irreversible disruption of the peace and future of an entire family. The court emphasized that no amount of compensation can truly redress the loss of life and future prospects.
