Vivek Tiwari
Lucknow: A sessions court in Lucknow on Monday sentenced constable Prashant Kumar Chaudhary to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the murder of Apple company executive Vivek Tiwari, 38, in 2018. He was arrested on Sept 29, 2018, and has remained in jail since then, completing about eight years in detention by the time of the sentencing.
Seeking leniency in punishment, Joshi further told the court that Chaudhary’s parents are old while his younger brother is unmarried. Vivek Tiwari’s family termed the verdict as “injustice” and said they will challenge Chaudhary’s 10-year sentence and Sandeep Kumar’s acquittal in the higher court. “This is injustice and no justice for us,” Kalpana said, questioning how a trained police constable could have made a mistake while firing his service weapon. Kalpana said the family considered the judgment half and would pursue legal remedies against both aspects of the order. Family’s counsel Pranshu Agarwal told TOI that they will file a criminal appeal in the high court.
Joshi submitted that Chaudhary had no previous criminal history and had never been convicted by any court. He maintained that the family considered the incident a clear case of murder.
Court Convicts Chaudhary of Culpable Homicide
On September 17, Sessions Judge Malkhan Singh convicted 36-year-old Chaudhary under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), categorizing his actions as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court imposed a fine of Rs 20,000, with an additional two months’ imprisonment if the fine is not paid. The time Chaudhary has already served in custody during the investigation and trial will be deducted from his sentence.
Co-accused constable Sandeep Kumar was acquitted of charges under Sections 323 and 302 read with Section 114 of the IPC. Sandeep, who was out on bail, must submit a personal bond of Rs 20,000 along with two sureties of the same amount.
In its ruling, the court determined that Chaudhary’s conduct fell within the exceptions outlined in Section 300 of the IPC, justifying the punishment under Part II of Section 304. Chaudhary’s defense attorney, Mukul Joshi, requested the court to take into account the duration of his client’s pre-trial custody. Joshi also noted that Chaudhary’s marriage had ended in divorce earlier in 2023 while the case was still pending.