In a landmark decision, the Chhattisgarh High Court in Sant Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 1950 of 2024) upheld the conviction of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable who, under alleged stress from workplace dynamics and denied leave, murdered four colleagues and injured one.
Facts of the Case
Sant Kumar, a CRPF constable posted in a Naxal-affected region of Chhattisgarh, was allegedly embroiled in conflicts with his superior officers regarding the allotment of duties and refusal of leave. On December 9, 2017, at approximately 4:30 PM, he opened fire using a service rifle inside the CRPF camp at Basaguda, killing Sub-Inspector Vicky Sharma, ASI Rajveer Singh, SI Megh Singh, and Constable Shankar Rao Ghanta. He also grievously injured ASI Gajanand Sharma.
The motive, as argued by the prosecution, stemmed from grudges harboured by the appellant against his colleagues for their disciplinary actions and denial of leave.
Charges and Conviction
The Sessions Court convicted Sant Kumar for:
- Section 302 IPC (Section 103 BNS) (Murder) – 4 counts
- Section 307 IPC (Section 109 BNS) (Attempt to Murder) – 1 count
- Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act – Illegal possession and use of firearms
The sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the murder could be reduced to culpable homicide under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Defence Argument: Workplace Stress as Mitigating Factor
The primary contention from the defence, led by Senior Advocate Ms. Fouzia Mirza, was that:
(I) The appellant was under extreme workplace stress, including:
- Denial of leave.
- High-pressure conditions in a Naxalite-infested zone.
- Constant harassment and scolding from superiors.
(II) The murders occurred in a heat of passion, allegedly due to provocation from the superiors, particularly after being denied leave and nominated against his will for a dog-handling course.
(III) The defence urged the Court to apply Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, arguing that this was culpable homicide not amounting to murder, warranting conviction under Section 304 (Part I or II) IPC.
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC: A Brief Legal Context
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (now Exception 4 to Section 101 BNS) states:
“Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”
For this exception to apply, the following must be established:
- No premeditation
- Sudden quarrel
- Heat of passion
- No undue advantage taken
- No cruel/unusual manner of attack
The High Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru rejected the application of Exception 4, based on a meticulous examination of evidence:
1. Premeditation and Weapon Use
- The appellant had two rifles (AK-47 and AKM), though only one is usually allotted.
- He left his post, entered the rest room, and retrieved his weapon with the intention to kill.
- He reloaded and fired multiple rounds, even targeting someone hiding behind a wall.
The appellant resorted to an extreme act by indiscriminately firing upon his fellow personnel using two assault rifles—an action that, under no reasonable interpretation, can be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I or II of the IPC.
2. Eyewitness and Injured Testimony
- ASI Gajanand Sharma, who survived with bullet injuries, clearly testified that the appellant was the shooter.
- Multiple CRPF personnel corroborated that the firing was done deliberately, not in self-defence or panic.
3. No Naxal Attack
- The appellant claimed he was framed due to a prior complaint about a fake encounter.
- However, the Court noted no external attack or crossfire occurred, and all injuries were sustained internally.
4. Discipline and Responsibility
The Court firmly emphasised that long working hours, denial of leave, and a stressful or hostile working environment—however challenging—cannot be accepted as valid justification for taking the law into one’s own hands or resorting to violence.
Armed forces personnel are expected to exhibit exceptional discipline, and the appellant, being trained and aware of the implications, violated that trust egregiously.
Verdict
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the life imprisonment, and clarified:
- The act was not spontaneous but pre-planned.
- Workplace stress, though real, does not justify murder.
- The law demands higher restraint from those entrusted with arms and public safety.
Legal Implications and Broader Reflections
This judgment reiterates a crucial distinction in Indian criminal law:
- Motive or stress alone does not convert murder into culpable homicide unless the act is shown to arise from a sudden provocation without premeditation.
- The armed nature of the accused and their intentional, methodical use of deadly weapons preclude the benefit of doubt.
Highlights of the Judgment
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru stated:
“The working conditions of armed forces personnel can be extremely dangerous and deadly involving exposure to variety of hazards both in combat and peace time situations. These hazards can lead to both immediate and long-term health problems, injuries, and even fatalities. However, the level of discipline is much higher for the armed force personnel than an ordinary civilian. They are adequately trained to face all sorts of pressures. Long working hours without leave and difficult environment does not give right to any person to vent his anger by causing death of his own colleagues.
The appellant, being a member of armed force was responsible for the security and safety of the people of the area from the naxalites but instead of performing his duty, the appellant took a drastic measure by opening fire indiscriminately with two assault rifles upon the fellow members, which, by no stretch of imagination can fall under Section 304 Part I or II of the IPC. The appellant was well aware of the consequences and ordinarily, a member of armed force is issued only one rifle but the appellant was carrying two rifles at a time and had used both the rifles which goes to suggest that he had premeditation for causing the crime in question.”
Key Takeaways
- Mental strain, however severe, is not a legal license for violence.
- Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is narrow in scope and requires strict satisfaction of all conditions.
- Eyewitness and injured witness testimonies remain paramount in criminal convictions.
Conclusion
Chhattisgarh High Court’s verdict in Sant Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh is a powerful affirmation of legal responsibility and ethical conduct in uniformed services. It sends a clear message: the heat of workplace frustration cannot extinguish the sanctity of life. In law, discipline must prevail over emotion, especially when lives are at stake.