news details |
|
|
| SHO acquitted of corruption charges after 12 years | | |
JAMMU, MAY 16
Special Judge Anticorruption, Jammu, Mr. Kartar Singh today acquitted the then SHO Police Station Kathua, Inspector AK Gupta from the charges of corruption as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt.
In the 15 pages acquittal judgment Kartar Singh, after hearing Chief Prosecuting Officer appearing for the Vigilance Organization and Advocate KK Sharma appearing for the accused, observed that Ram Chand and others lodges a complaint against complainants in the P/S on June 6, 1996 and FIR for commission of offences U/Ss 447/147/148 RPC was registered against them and after investigation they were challaned in the Court of CJM Kathua. As proved from the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint against the then SHO was not lodged at that time. It creates doubt in the mind of the Court that the complaint was anti-dated as May 30, 1996 in order to prove that there was no case against the complainants at that time. It is difficult for the Court to rely upon on such dubious complaint in order to connect the accused with the commission of alleged offences.
Special Judge Anticorruption further observed that the complaint appears to have been lodged with the Superintendent of Police on July 19, 1996 but there is another document on record which shows that the enquiry on the complaint against the accused was entrusted to the Chief Prosecuting Officer Kathua on June 11, 1996. He conducted enquiry and submitted his report to the SP in which he established the allegations against the accused. What is matter of surprise is that FIR was registered only June 24, 1996 though the alleged occurrence stated to have taken place on May 25, 1996. No explanation has been given for this inexcusable and uncondonable delay. This leaves serious dent in the prosecution case as to its credibility and truthfulness. It is an established principle of law held by the Supreme Court that the delay in registration of the case is made by the Investigating Agency only to shape the same in its own way. How can case be held as established beyond any doubt, where the FIR has been registered after a considerable length of time, since the occurrence and that too without any iota of explanation about the delay? There are glaring discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution which render it quite doubtful. The accused is therefore acquitted of the charges framed against him.
According to the prosecution case on May 30, 1996 complainants Mohinder Singh and Narinder Singh lodged a written complaint before SP Kathua stating that they were the legitimate owners of the land situated in village Forlen Jhang Tehsil and District Kathua and the then SHO Kathua tried to grab it in collusion with some persons of the Village by misusing his official position and started harassing them. He also called them to the police station and threatened to implicate them in heinous case if they failed to handover the possession of the land to the other party. On May 25, 1996 he called them to the P/S and told them that a case of serious nature has been registered against them and directed not to leave the P/S. The case would be closed only if they pay Rs. 10, 000 or hand over the possession of land. According to complainant they collected the amount which was lying with them and paid Rs 2500 on the same day and promised to pay Rs 5500 on May 28, 1996. After making part payment, the then SHO again harassed them and he also told Bachan Singh to give an undertaking in writing that they would not enter in the land. They filed a written complaint with the SSP Kathua who got a preliminary enquiry conducted through CPO Kathua subsequently. The case was refereed to VOJ and after completion of the investigation challan was presented in the Court which was decided today and the accused acquitted from the charges after more than 12 years of investigation and trial
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
