NEW DELHI, July 5 -- A Delhi court on Saturday sentenced Bharatiya Janata Party MLA Raju Kumar Singh to four years in prison in a case of celebratory firing inside a south Delhi farmhouse on new years' eve of 2018 that led to the death of a woman, observing that the act of the legislator was "grotesque" and any leniency in sentencing would legitimise the "trend of trigger happy law enforcers". In a 34-page order passed by Special Judge Vishal Gogne of Rouse Avenue Courts, the court said, "The act of continuous firing by the convict reflected a callous disregard to human life and acts as an aggravating circumstance". The court's decision effectively disqualifies Singh as a sitting MLA since under the Indian law, any person convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more, is automatically disqualified from contesting elections and ceases to hold office. Only if Singh appeals the conviction before a higher court, which explicitly stays the conviction and not just the sentence, the disqualification would stand suspended. Dismissing Singh's argument regarding a mismatch in the number of bullets recovered from the spot, the court said the number of bullets was not a barometer of elevated or diminished knowledge and one bullet was often enough to consume an innocent human life, that of 31-year-old Archana Gupta. The court said acts of celebratory firing were a recurrent and well-known phenomenon. A firearm was best kept holstered and must only be used in the case of warranted self defence. It further said, "Yet, it is not at all uncommon in our country, for marriage and other social functions to be used as an occasion for firing from weapons". "We need neither a Singham nor a Pushpa in a state governed by the rule of law. The brazen act of firing by Raju Kumar Singh was however, an inspiration to both such aspirations," the court stated. The court said while Singh's weapon was licensed, his act of firing served to legitimise a gun culture which was predicated on "muscular assertion of power" and "largely male dominance". Singh, the court observed, was apparently "drunk on the arrogance of power" and seemingly wanted to "project his status as a MLA by firing from his pistol". The court noted that such acts by a MLA only went on to embolden others to emulate such conduct. "The rank and file of those who seek macho gratification with the imagery of guns being fired would include not only the lawless criminals but also uniform clad protectors of the law," the court said. The judge highlighted that the use of weapons by an MLA conveyed to criminals that a gun is a weapon of choice, flaunting and assertion and "encourages an ecosystem of illicit firearms". The order said, "In fact, many an aspiring gang leader or strongman has stepped into politics in our nation on the strength of the gun, earning thereby the notorious sobriquet of Bahubali." The court further observed that such an action by legislator only emboldens and could be used as a shield by those in uniform "to act like vigilantes" who may deploy their own firearms against perceived criminals without following the due process of law. The court added, "In sum, the wanton firing by Raju Kumar Singh had devastating consequences upon the family of the victim, apart from the loss of a promising life. The circumstance is again an aggravation of the offence towards imposition of higher rather than a token or small sentence of imprisonment." Life is not a bed of roses but a crown of thorns, Special Judge Gogne observed, stating that acts invited consequences and offences beget punishment. The court said that it is satisfied that a sentence of four years would be apposite and a suitable stringent punishment for commission of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It said that the sentence would serve as a potent deterrent against similar acts of reckless firings by politicians and others alike in social functions. Noting that Singh possessed enough wealth through his salary as an MLA and owning multiple properties in Delhi and Bihar, the court also directed Singh to pay a compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs to the family of the victim in view of the trauma undergone by them due to the "unnecessary fatality". In the last hearing, Singh urged the court to spare him a jail term, arguing that he committed the offence due to a "lack of scientific knowledge" as he could not have anticipated the parabolic trajectory the fired bullet would take. Singh moved a plea under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which empowers the court to release certain convicted offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to immediate imprisonment or fines. In response, the court called upon a report from the probation officer with respect to any previous cases against Singh and if there was any possibility for his rehabilitation. Singh, present physically before the court, said, "I did not commit the offence intentionally. I have faithfully served the people of my constituency. The deceased and her husband were my close friends". The court had on June 6 convicted Singh, a sitting BJP MLA from Bihar's Sahebganj, in a case where he fired a bullet in the air while celebrating inside a farmhouse in South Delhi's Fatehpur Beri on New Year's eve in 2018, which eventually hit Archana Gupta, wife of complainant Vikas Gupta and one of the attendees of the party which was organised by Singh's brother. Holding that Singh fired the fatal bullet which caused Gupta's death, the special judge had convicted him under Indian Penal Code section 304 (II) (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and section 30 of the Arms Act (punishment for contravention of license or rule). Arguing for a lenient sentence, advocate Rajiv Mohan, on behalf of Singh, argued, "I fired the bullet due to a lack of scientific knowledge.it is a matter of subjective recklessness. I took all precautions but I did not understand the parabolic path (of the bullet)". Senior advocate Nandita Rao, also representing Singh, referred to the probation report, stating that Singh has not been convicted in any of the other offences and has been acquitted in a majority of them. The counsel further submitted, "There multiple cases against me on the complaints of my political rivals but no one has ever said I brandished a weapon or shot in the air. A sentence of less than two years should be considered so that I can retain my party seat". The probation report stated that there was a possibility for Singh's rehabilitation in view of a lack of an adverse social and personal character. The report also listed out the 17 previous cases lodged against him in Bihar, including cases under the penal section of attempt to murder, the SC/ST Act and under the Arms Act. Singh also faces possibility of getting disqualified as a legislator, and that too with immediate effect. A Bihar state assembly official, who is well versed with constitutional laws, said that the disqualification of any MLA now happens automatically once he/she is convicted in any offence with a sentencing of two or more years of imprisonment. He said that the Supreme Court has already given a ruling in the Lily Thomas case. "Only when a lawmaker's conviction by a lower court with imprisonment of two or more years is overturned by the High Court, one can get relief. There is no provision of any stay now," he said. In that case, the official said, the disqualification of the BJP MP is going to happen soon once the court order reaches the Speaker's office in the state assemby. Thereafter, a comminique would be sent to the Election Commission of India to hold a bypoll for the vaccant seat....