CBI court directs cop to pay ₹30L compensation to youth in vegetative state

Haryana Police head constable Anand Singh had shot at victim Mohit on July 24, 2015, when he, along with his four friends, was on his way to Tikona Park area in Faridabad in a Ford Fiesta

Nearly nine years after a policeman “accidentally” shot a youth in Faridabad, CBI special court ordered the cop to pay a compensation of ₹30 lakh to the victim who has been in vegetative state since then.

“Any amount of compensation cannot lessen the misery of the victim, who ever since the date of incident remains in a vegetative state and is likely to be so for the rest of his life,” observed the CBI court of special judge Rajeev Goyal in Panchkula on August 22, while disposing off the appeal filed by the head constable, who has paid the compensation amount. (Getty image)

Haryana Police head constable Anand Singh had shot at victim Mohit on July 24, 2015, when he, along with his four friends, was on his way to Tikona Park area in Faridabad in a Ford Fiesta.

“Any amount of compensation cannot lessen the misery of the victim, who ever since the date of incident remains in a vegetative state and is likely to be so for the rest of his life,” observed the CBI court of special judge Rajeev Goyal in Panchkula on August 22, while disposing off the appeal filed by the head constable, who has paid the compensation amount.

On February, 21, 2023, CBI special judicial magistrate had convicted Anand under Sections 286 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded him two-year jail. Anand had filed an appeal against his conviction and sentencing but later, he had told the court that he “no longer wished to contest the finding of guilt and will contest the impugned order of sentence only.”

“Being a hapless father, he (Tejpal) was more concerned about the well being of his son Mohit, who has been in coma, rather than having the convict sent to jail to undergo sentence of imprisonment. Obviously, the family of the victim is not very well off financially and they must have been finding it difficult to arrange expenses for medical care,” said the court.

Anand was released on “probation of good conduct for one year on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of ₹1 lakh with one surety in the like amount,” the court added.

The court in its direction issued directions, “Tejpal shall be entitled to utilise the FDR amount, along with accrued interest, from time to time strictly for the benefit of the victim and no other purpose, and while doing so, shall maintain all record concerning the money expended by him for medical expenses or otherwise in respect of his son Mohit.”

The court has also directed the District Legal Services Authority, Panchkula, for awarding appropriate compensation to the victim.

The case

The car was reportedly stopped near Kheri Pul by 6 crime investigation agency (CIA) officials of Faridabad police of Sector-30 police station. Police checked the identity cards of the youths and asked to lift their hands. As Mohit questioned the officials about their identity, one of them pointed his weapon towards him and fired upon him even as others tried to stop him. Resultantly, Mohit sustained injuries on his face and nose. Due to bullet injury, Mohit suffered grievous hurt and went into coma.

Initially, an FIR was registered at Old Faridabad police station against four policemen under Sections 307 and 30 of the IPC but later, a charge-sheet was filed on December 11, 2015, against Anand and no action was recommended against the rest. Later in April 2016, Punjab and Haryana high court had transferred the investigation to CBI on plea by Mohit’s father.

CBI’s investigation found that it was a case of accidental firing and hence, the accused was found to have committed offences punishable under Sections 286 and 338 of the IPC.

“Thus, the very fact that accused has been held guilty goes to show that firing of a shot from service pistol of appellant HC Anand Singh was not an intentional act. It happened while the boys from the car were being shifted to the police vehicle for being taken to CIA for their interrogation/inquiry. In fact, it was fated to happen with nobody having control over it. Needless to say, the offences are products of negligence,” read the court order while accepting his appeal.

The order added, “Thus, incident of firing due to negligence on the part of appellant HC Anand Singh in handling his service pistol, was without an element of mens rea. In view of this, mens rea being absent, the offences in the present case cannot be said to be falling within the category of “grave offences.”