Ghaziabad: A sessions court has sentenced a 72-year-old school security guard to life imprisonment for shooting a man dead on the campus in 2018, holding that the prosecution proved he fired at close range during an argument inside the guard room.Additional district and sessions judge Junaid Muzaffar said the case did not fall in the “rarest of rare” category that would justify the death penalty. After considering the defence’s submissions, the court awarded Shiv Vijay the life term and imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 under IPC Section 302, and three years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs 3,000 under Section 27 of the Arms Act for using a firearm without a licence. The sentences will run concurrently.The case was registered at Muradnagar police station on April 22, 2018, on a complaint by the school’s administrative officer, Atul Bhushan. Apart from Vijay, the FIR also mentioned one Natthu Singh under Section 30 of the Arms Act because the gun used in the shooting was licensed in his name. Natthu, whose son owns Jagatpal Perfect Security Systems and Services, died during the proceedings.Charges against Vijay were framed on June 24, 2019. The guard denied them, prompting the trial to proceed further.The prosecution examined 10 witnesses, including the complainant. A key account came from Trishna Pal Singh, a school driver, who told the court the deceased was his nephew, Praveen.According to him, Praveen had come to the school (DPS, HRIT campus) that day seeking a driver’s job. Singh said he took Praveen to meet Vijay in the guard room, where the three sat together and drank. He testified that Praveen later misplaced his mobile phone and accused Vijay of stealing it, triggering an angry 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, supported Singh’s version.The defence argued that the prosecution witnesses were acquaintances of the deceased, and pointed to contradictions in their statements. But prosecutor Sunil Kaushik countered that the incident occurred in 2018 and witness statements were recorded nearly five years later, making minor inconsistencies “quite natural”. He also argued their evidence remained credible as that of “natural witnesses” present at the scene.The judge accepted the testimonies of Trishpal Singh and Kunwarpal. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the court said 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, and said medical evidence, including the testimony of Dr Naveen Kumar, established the injuries were caused by a gunshot.
