Ghaziabad Court Sentences 72-Year-Old Guard to Life for 2018 School Shooting
A sessions court in Ghaziabad has delivered a significant verdict, sentencing a 72-year-old school security guard to life imprisonment for the fatal shooting of a man on the school campus in 2018. The court, presided over by Additional District and Sessions Judge Junaid Muzaffar, held that the prosecution successfully proved the guard fired at close range during an argument inside the guard room.
Court Rejects Death Penalty, Imposes Life Term
In its ruling, the court explicitly stated that the case did not fall into the "rarest of rare" category that would justify the death penalty. After carefully considering the defence's submissions, the court awarded Shiv Vijay the life term. Additionally, a fine of Rs 25,000 was imposed under IPC Section 302 for murder. The guard also received three years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs 3,000 under Section 27 of the Arms Act for using a firearm without a valid licence. The court ordered that these sentences run concurrently.
Background of the 2018 Incident
The case originated from an incident on April 22, 2018, when a complaint was filed at the Muradnagar police station by the school's administrative officer, Atul Bhushan. The FIR not only named Shiv Vijay but also mentioned Natthu Singh under Section 30 of the Arms Act, as the gun used in the shooting was licensed in his name. Natthu Singh, whose son owned Jagatpal Perfect Security Systems and Services, passed away during the legal proceedings.
Charges against Vijay were formally framed on June 24, 2019. The guard denied the allegations, leading to a full trial. The prosecution presented 10 witnesses, including the complainant, to build its case.
Key Testimony and Witness Accounts
A pivotal account came from Trishna Pal Singh, a school driver, who informed the court that the deceased, Praveen, was his nephew. According to his testimony, Praveen had visited the school—DPS, HRIT campus—that day in search of a driver's job. Singh stated that he took Praveen to meet Vijay in the guard room, where the three individuals sat together and consumed alcohol.
He testified that Praveen later misplaced his mobile phone and accused Vijay of stealing it, which sparked a heated confrontation. "In a fit of rage and intoxication, he pulled out his single-barrel gun and shot him at close range," Singh told the court. Two other drivers, Kunwarpal and Nareshpal, corroborated this version of events, providing consistent support for the prosecution's narrative.
Defence Arguments and Prosecution Counter
The defence team argued that the prosecution witnesses were acquaintances of the deceased and highlighted contradictions in their statements. However, prosecutor Sunil Kaushik countered this by emphasizing that the incident occurred in 2018, with witness statements recorded nearly five years later, making minor inconsistencies "quite natural". He further asserted that their evidence remained credible as they were "natural witnesses" present at the scene.
Court's Evaluation and Final Decision
Judge Junaid Muzaffar accepted the testimonies of Trishpal Singh and Kunwarpal, finding them reliable. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the court clarified that the non-recovery of the weapon does not, by itself, entitle an accused to acquittal. The court noted it was "clearly evident" that Vijay fled after the shooting, leaving the gun in the guard room.
Medical evidence, including the testimony of Dr Naveen Kumar, was cited to establish that the injuries were indeed caused by a gunshot. This comprehensive evaluation led to the conviction and the subsequent sentencing, marking a closure to a case that has spanned several years.
