6 years after guard’s murder at construction site, 3 get life term

The case dates back to November 26, 2020, when Ghanaiya Lal, a security guard posted at the NCB flats construction site in Sector 66, was assaulted during an altercation with trio, who were working as painters at the site

Nearly six years after a security guard was fatally assaulted at an under-construction site in Sector 66, a Mohali court has sentenced three men to life imprisonment for his murder.

The court noted that no CCTV footage was available at the site and said the absence of footage could not benefit the accused when the prosecution had produced an eyewitness account. (HT Photo for representation)

Additional sessions judge Vikrant Kumar sentenced Mukesh Kumar alias Tillu, Rajinder Kumar alias Ajay Kumar alias Tota and Rajinder Kumar alias Jindu to life imprisonment under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court also sentenced them to a year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 IPC.

Each convict was fined ₹20,000 under Section 302, with six months’ rigorous imprisonment in case of default of payment. The court, however, acquitted the three of the charges under Section 341 (wrongful restraint) read with Section 34 IPC, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that they had wrongfully restrained the victim.

The case dates back to November 26, 2020, when Ghanaiya Lal, a security guard posted at the NCB flats construction site in Sector 66, was assaulted during an altercation with trio, who were working as painters at the site.

Suraj raised the alarm, following which site supervisor Kuldeep Sharma reached the spot. The trio fled the spot, according to the prosecution. Suraj and Kuldeep took the injured man to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, where he died during treatment on December 11, 2020.

The post-mortem report attributed the death to craniocerebral (skull and brain) damage caused by blunt-force trauma to the head. The court noted that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

The defence challenged the prosecution case on several grounds, including the absence of closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera footage, failure to conduct a test identification parade, alleged contradictions in Suraj’s testimony and the fact that the recovered iron rod and wooden rolling pin had not been sealed by the investigating officer.

The court rejected these arguments, holding that the contradictions were minor and did not affect the core of the prosecution case. It also relied on Suraj’s eyewitness testimony and the recovery of weapons following disclosure statements made by the accused.

The court noted that no CCTV footage was available at the site and said the absence of footage could not benefit the accused when the prosecution had produced an eyewitness account.

The court also rejected the argument that Suraj was an “interested witness” because he was the deceased’s son. It held that the defence had failed to establish any reason for Suraj or the police to falsely implicate the three men while allowing the real perpetrators to escape.

The court further relied on the testimony of the site supervisor, who said during his examination-in-chief that he saw the three men beating the victim after reaching the spot on hearing the commotion.

The prosecution had sought death penalty for the three convicts. The court declined the plea, observing that the case did not fall within the “rarest of rare” category required for capital punishment. It instead imposed life imprisonment on all three.

The court directed that the period already spent by the convicts in custody during investigation and trial be set off against their sentences. It also recommended that the district legal services authority, Mohali, consider compensation for the legal heirs of Lal.