The Madras High Court confirmed an order of the lower court awarding life sentence to K Ramaraj, a retired military officer, who shot dead 13-year-old Dilshan on July 3, 2011.
The prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Ramaraj has fired at Dilshan with his rifle, resulting in the boy’s death. Therefore, the charge under Sec. 302 (murder) of the IPC stands proved, a division bench of Justices S Rajeswaran and PN Prakash said on Thursday.
The bench was dismissing a criminal appeal from Ramaraj challenging the order dated April 20, 2012, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Chennai, awarding life sentence and levying a total fine of `60,000 under various sections of the IPC and the Arms Act. Of the fine amount, `50,000 was ordered to be paid to Dilshan’s mother as compensation.
“Adam ate the forbidden apple and was expelled from heaven. Dilshan, a lad of 13, yearned for almonds and was expelled from earth,” the judges said.
On the fateful day of July 3, 2011, Dilshan, along with three other friends, scaled the compound wall of OEG Officers Enclave on Flag Staff House Road in Fort St George, where Ramaraj, a retired military man, and his family were living. He had been granted three month’s time to vacate the place and the incident occurred just 28 days before he vacated the house. The enclave had many fruit trees, which attracted urchins from the neighbourhood in Indira Nagar.
The judges also observed that the prosecution has proved that the gun licence of Ramaraj had expired on March 12, 2008, and that he had not surrendered the same to the armory as mandated by law. Therefore, Ramaraj was punishable under the Arms Act. It was the appellant who caused the death of Dilshan on July 3 by opening fire at him, the bench said and upheld the lower court order.
Before parting with the case, the judges recorded their appreciation to the army officers for rendering their best assistance to the police and promptly handing over the evidence to the investigating officer (IO). The trial judge had taken an active part in the trial by exercising her powers under Sec. 165 of the Indian Evidence Act and putting relevant questions to various witnesses. The judges also appreciated Ramaraj’s senior counsel A Natarajan and Public Prosecutor Shanmuga Velayutham for their neat presentation of the case.