news details |
|
|
| DB orders reinvestigation of murder case through CB | | |
JAMMU, MAY 07-
Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Jammu wing, comprising Justice Nirmal Singh and Justice Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain, while deciding a law point whether case under trial in the Court can be reinvestigated, has directed the Crime Branch for reinvestigation of the murder case Referring to the judgment of Apex Court, the DB directed that the reinvestigation shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police.
This law point has been decided in an appeal filed by the mother of deceased Kundan Lal, who was allegedly killed by seven private respondents on the intervening night of March 9-10 last year. According to the appellant Rakesh Kumari that the deceased spoke to the appellant from his mobile and informed her that he is being followed by the private respondents, namely Balwan Singh, Sohan Lal, Suram Singh, Vijay Kumar, Nandu, Sham Singh and Vikas Kumar all residents of Katra, possessing weapons to assault him. The appellant rushed towards the place which was identified by her son deceased Kundan Lal. It was stated that when she reached the said place, she found that private respondents armed with weapons like swords, knives etc having encircled her son and inflicting injuries on various parts of his body. The son of the appellant tried to save himself, but due to deadly assault and fatal injuries caused by the private respondents, was unable to do so. The appellant raised hue and cry and some locals gathered on the spot while the private respondents ran away from the spot. Appellant reported the matter to SHO Katra, who wrote the FIR in Urdu and asked the appellant to put her signatures on a piece of paper. It was submitted that later on, the appellant came to know that SHO concerned is biased and has not recorded the true version put forth by the applicant before him and he recorded the names of only two persons Sham Singh s/o Gian Singh r/o Dhrooh Charan Padika Katra and Vikas Kumar s/o Rishi Kumar Kohli r/o Dhrorh Katra. In the FIR, whereas the appellant had specifically named all the seven alleged accused but the challan was presented before the competent Court against only two private respondents named above.
It is further submitted that when the investigation was not being done fairly, the appellant filed a petition with a prayer that SHO concerned should be divested of the investigation in FIR No 48/2006 registered with P/S Katra and seeking investigation through CBI or any other independent agency. During the pendency of the petition before the writ Court, the challan was filed before the Magistrate, and was sent for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Reasi, where the appellant moved an application seeking reinvestigation of the case. The Trial Court declined the application by observing that the trial Court has no power to direct further investigation or reinvestigation and this power vests only with the High Court.
This significant judgment written by Justice Nirmal Singh for the Division Bench, after hearing Adv Mrs. Seema Sharma appearing for the appellant and Advocate AS Katoch and Advocate PS Parmar appearing for the private respondent 9, 10 and 11, observed that main relief which the appellant sought in the petition was that the SHO P/S Katra be restrained from conducting the investigation in the said FIR u/s 302 RPC r/w section 4/25 Arms Act involving the murder of her son and handed over the investigation to the CBI or to some other independent agency. While the petition was pending before the Single Judge, the SHO concerned filed the report before the concerned Magistrate, who committed the case to the Sessions Court and referred section 173 Cr PC and said that a perusal of the said section shows that after the presentation of the report, the police has the power for further investigation of the case and if further evidence is collected the police can submit a supplementary report. But this section does not preclude the Court from ordering further investigation, if the facts and circumstances so warranted.
The Division Bench referring a case of the Supreme Court further said that prima-facie “we are of the view that the investigation conducted by the SHO Katra has not been done in a proper and fair manner and is also not in consonance with the complaint made by the appellant”.
With these observations, the Division Bench modified the order impugned of November 14, 2006 passed by the Single Judge to the extent that the case be re-investigated by the State Crime Branch and the investigation shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank of SP. The officer to whom the investigation is entrusted shall file his report before the Trial Court within a period of three months and the Trial Court will proceed further with the trial according to law, the Division Bench ordered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
