By NewsMatrix 
Police Constable Sentenced to 10 Years for Culpable Homicide in Vivek Tiwari Shooting Case
NewsMatrix – In a significant development stemming from a high-profile case that has drawn national attention since 2018, police constable Prashant Kumar Chaudhary has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The verdict relates to the tragic death of Apple executive Vivek Tiwari, who was fatally shot during a police encounter in Lucknow. While Chaudhary received a decade-long sentence, co-accused constable Sandeep Kumar was acquitted by the court, citing insufficient evidence against him. The judgment, delivered recently, has not brought closure for Tiwari’s grieving family, who have vehemently expressed their dissatisfaction with both the quantum of the sentence and the acquittal, announcing their intention to appeal the decision.
The Tragic Night of September 2018: A Life Cut Short
The incident that led to this landmark verdict unfolded on the night of September 28, 2018, in Lucknow, the capital city of Uttar Pradesh. Vivek Tiwari, a 38-year-old Area Sales Manager at Apple, was returning home after a product launch event with his colleague, Sana Khan. Their vehicle was stopped by a police patrol team, comprising constables Prashant Kumar Chaudhary and Sandeep Kumar, near Gomti Nagar. What transpired next remains a deeply contested sequence of events, but it culminated in Chaudhary firing a single shot that struck Tiwari in the head, leading to his instantaneous death.
Initial police reports and official statements attempted to frame the incident as a case of self-defense or an accident during an attempt to apprehend a suspect. However, Sana Khan, the sole eyewitness, provided a starkly different account. She maintained that Tiwari did not attempt to flee or resist, and that the firing was unprovoked and unjustified. Her testimony became a cornerstone of the prosecution’s case, challenging the narrative put forth by the police department.
Investigation and Legal Proceedings: A Scrutinized Path to Justice
The immediate aftermath of Vivek Tiwari’s death sparked widespread outrage and public outcry. The killing of a corporate executive by a police officer in what appeared to be a routine check-up raised serious questions about police brutality, accountability, and the arbitrary use of force. Recognizing the gravity of the situation and the intense public pressure, the Uttar Pradesh government swiftly ordered an investigation. An FIR (First Information Report) was lodged against Prashant Kumar Chaudhary, initially under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to murder.
The investigation proceeded under intense media scrutiny and public gaze. Forensic reports, ballistic analyses, and witness statements were meticulously collected and examined. The case was eventually transferred to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure impartiality and thoroughness. Throughout the trial, the prosecution presented evidence aiming to establish that Chaudhary’s actions were premeditated or, at the very least, constituted an act of reckless disregard for human life that went beyond the permissible limits of self-defense or official duty.
The legal battle was protracted, spanning over five years in the courts. Lawyers for the accused argued that Chaudhary acted in self-defense, believing Tiwari’s car posed a threat, or that the shooting was accidental. However, the court, after carefully weighing all evidence, arrived at a different conclusion.
The Verdict: Culpable Homicide, Not Murder
After years of hearings and deliberations, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, delivered its verdict. Prashant Kumar Chaudhary was found guilty under Section 304 (Part I) of the IPC – culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This specific section carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, along with a fine. The court sentenced Chaudhary to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine, acknowledging the severe nature of his actions while drawing a distinction from murder.
The distinction between murder (Section 302 IPC) and culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC) is crucial in Indian criminal law. Murder requires an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is imminently dangerous and will in all probability cause death, without any excuse. Culpable homicide, on the other hand, involves causing death with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, but without the specific intentions or knowledge required for murder. In this instance, the court likely determined that while Chaudhary’s actions led to Tiwari’s death and were a result of his knowledge that such an act could cause death, there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove the higher degree of intention or premeditation required for a murder conviction.
Acquittal of Co-Accused Sandeep Kumar
In a separate but equally significant part of the verdict, constable Sandeep Kumar, who was present with Chaudhary during the incident, was acquitted of all charges. The court’s decision was based on the premise of insufficient evidence to prove his direct involvement in the shooting or to establish his complicity in the act that led to Vivek Tiwari’s death. This acquittal underscores the rigorous evidentiary standards required in criminal justice and highlights the individual culpability assessed by the court.
The acquittal of Sandeep Kumar, however, adds another layer of complexity to the family’s pursuit of justice, as they had sought conviction for both constables involved in the fateful encounter. Their belief is that both officers bear responsibility for the circumstances that led to Vivek Tiwari’s untimely demise.
Family’s Quest for Justice: A Long Road Ahead
For Vivek Tiwari’s family, the verdict, particularly the sentence of 10 years for culpable homicide and the acquittal of Sandeep Kumar, falls short of their expectations for complete justice. Kalpana Tiwari, Vivek’s widow, has consistently maintained that her husband’s death was a cold-blooded murder and has tirelessly campaigned for the harshest possible punishment for the perpetrators. Speaking to reporters after the judgment, she expressed profound disappointment, reiterating her belief that the verdict does not adequately reflect the gravity of the loss her family has endured.
The family’s legal team has promptly announced their intention to appeal the judgment in a higher court. Their appeal will likely challenge two main aspects: seeking an enhancement of Prashant Kumar Chaudhary’s sentence from culpable homicide to murder, and contesting the acquittal of Sandeep Kumar. They hope to present additional arguments or interpretations of existing evidence that could persuade a higher judicial body to reassess the degree of culpability and the involvement of both officers.
This decision to appeal highlights the enduring struggle of victims’ families in India’s judicial system, where the journey for justice can be long, arduous, and emotionally draining. The Tiwari family’s resolve underscores their determination to ensure that Vivek’s death serves as a precedent for greater police accountability and justice.
Implications for Police Accountability and Public Trust
The Vivek Tiwari shooting case has become a touchstone for discussions on police accountability, the use of firearms by law enforcement, and the protection of civil liberties in India. The conviction of a police officer for causing the death of a civilian, even if for culpable homicide rather than murder, sends a clear message that law enforcement personnel are not above the law and will be held responsible for their actions. This verdict could potentially strengthen public trust in the judiciary’s ability to deliver justice even in cases involving state actors.
However, the case also brings to the fore the complexities faced by police personnel in potentially volatile situations, balancing their duty to maintain law and order with the need to adhere to human rights and legal protocols. Training, de-escalation techniques, and strict adherence to standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the use of force become paramount in preventing such tragedies. The outcome of the appeal will further shape the discourse around police conduct and the legal frameworks governing it.
Conclusion: A Verdict, But Not Closure
The sentencing of Prashant Kumar Chaudhary marks a significant milestone in the four-year-long legal battle surrounding the Vivek Tiwari shooting. While it represents a measure of justice, it clearly falls short of providing the desired closure for Vivek Tiwari’s family, who continue their unwavering fight for what they perceive as complete justice. This case not only highlights the individual tragedy of a life lost but also casts a powerful spotlight on critical issues of police accountability, judicial distinctions in homicide, and the enduring quest for truth and justice within the Indian legal system. As the family prepares for its appeal, the nation watches, hoping for a resolution that can truly uphold the principles of justice for all.