LAWS(CAL)-2025-1-6

NITUL DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On January 10, 2025
NITUL DAS Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner joined Border Security Force in the post of Constable and he was posted in 47 Battalion, BSF, under the authority of Commandant, 144 Battalion, BSF, Kalayani, District-Nadia, West Bengal.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that hence the instant writ petition on 3/9/2013 an accidental firing was done by the Petitioner at B.O.P. Sandeshkhali at 10:10PM, ASI Ram Singh(PW-4) was wounded in his below left knee position, incidents occurred when the Petitioner in the process of weapon clearing drill prior to depositing his Firearm (NS Rifle) to the KOTE of B.O.P. Sandeshkhali. Thereafter on 4/9/2013 The Petitioner put under close arrest and was taken in BSF custody till 30/10/2014 and by order of the Commandant of 47 BN BSF Mr. J S Sandhu the Petitioner was suspended. Thereafter on 5/9/2013 FIR was lodged against the Petitioner by the Coy. Commander of B coy of 47 BN BSF Dilip Kumar Biswas before Hingalgunge Police Station vide Hingalgunge P.S. Case No. 96 dtd. 5/9/2013 @ 15:15Pm by alleging that the Petitioner intentionally fired towards S.I. Babu Lal(PW-1) to kill him and also wounded ASI Ram Singh(PW-4). Thereafter on 14/9/2013 Vide an order passed by the Commandant of 47 BN BSF Mr. J S Sandhu three charges were framed against the Petitioner as follows:-

(3.) Mr. Soumya Majumder, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the petitioner was performing weapon clearing drill before depositing the weapon after duty at the time accidental firing was happened. He further argued that the several inconsistencies appeared in the statement of PWs regarding the alleged fact of firing. The authority concerned/prosecution has failed to prove the primary ingredients of offence i.e. mens ria of the petition against the wounded ASI Ram Singh (PW4). The evidences also disclosed that there are several contradictions regarding the alleged fact of firing. He further argued that the evidences of seizure of used bullets has not been specifically proved the intention of petitioner for causing grievous hurt or causing such an injury which may lead to loss of life.