news details |
|
|
| Court acquits accused facing trial in murder case | | |
JAMMU, APRIL 26
2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, Mr. AK Koul today acquitted Amarjeet Singh alias Bitta from the charges of committing murder of one Narinder Singh alias Banted on December 27, 2004.
In the 20 pages acquittal judgment, the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Advocate OP Sharma, for the accused, observed that the statements of some witnesses in terms of section 161 have been recorded late and one of such witnesses is wife of the deceased, who has been examined by the police on January 6, 2006, while as the occurrence took place on December 27, 2004. Similarly, Sanjay Abrol, and Jagdev Singh on January 30 and Sanjeev Jamwal on January 14. Court questioned as to who would explain this delay? Court said none other than IO but he has chosen not to attend the Court. Again there are serious contradictions in the statements of witnesses and there is a long list of witnesses who have turned hostile. Only two have supported the prosecution case and it was the IO who could explain the conflict in the prosecution evidence. More particularly in the statements of Sanjeev Singh Jamwal and Joyti Billowria, the place of recovery and the place of occurrence had to be identified but none examination has resulted in serious infirmities in the case, which prosecution has found difficult to explain.
Mr Koull further observed that one cannot loose sight of the legal principle that the testimony of a single witness can be even sufficient for convicting a person. Here prosecution has submitted that two witnesses have supported the prosecution story and so the case qualifies for conviction. At the risk of repetition, court wants to bring it on record that it is true that two witnesses, who claim themselves as eye-witnesses, have deposed against the accused but the scrutiny of their statements reveals that they cannot be relied upon. Both these witnesses appear to have been planted in the case. The informant, who has lodged the report, has failed to support the story, so is the case with other witnesses who as per prosecution were present at the scene of occurrence. The case rests on unsound footings, the deceased has lost his life and there cannot be any dispute to that extent but who is responsible for that no one knows. Prosecution has failed to create a link between the accused and the guilt. The evidence on record is not sufficient in any case to hold accused guilty, some more evidence was indispensably required, which is missing. The documentary evidence on record also does not hold such a worth which could lend genuine credence to the prosecution story. The entire exercise conducted by Investigating Agency and the prosecution appears to have ended in futility. With the observations court acquitted the accused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
