news details |
|
|
| Court acquits three accused facing trials in murder case | | |
JAMMU, JUNE 16- The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, Mr. AK Koul acquitted Bashir Ahmed, Ghulam Mustafa and Allah Rakha r/o Jaindial Morha Nakhter Nallah Tehsil Jammu, facing trial in a alleged murder of Ghulam Ali as prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused.
While acquitting the accused persons, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Advocate MM Gupta appearing for the accused persons, observed that the statement of deceased could not be recorded as dying declaration because as per prosecution story his death was not expected as he was not so serious. Even if it is believed to be so, it cannot be accepted on account of so many infirmities. Another crucial aspect of the case is clash between ocular version and medical evidence as per eye-witnesses, the deceased sustained injuries in his genitals and had also, but the post-mortem report does not support this as per doctor deceased had no injury on genitals or head, so either the witnesses or lying or the post-mortem has not been conducted rightly and a conflict between ocular version and medical report is again a serious issue which was cannot overlook. The wife of the deceased in her statement testifies that the statement of the deceased was recorded in hospital, when his condition deteriorated, in presence of doctor and SHO which was signed by deceased, doctor and SHO, but no such statement is on record. It could truly be a dying declaration but either it has been suppressed or no such statement was either recorded.
Mr. AK Koul in the judgment further observed that it need not be stated that in a charge of murder, at least cause of death must be proved. The accused are facing charge of having inflicted injuries on deceased, which precipitated his death. Post mortem was a sole purpose of ascertaining the cause of death. In this case also post mortem was conducted but the doctor conducting the autopsy has not entered in witness box to state what he observed. A document is evidence of nothing unless proved in accordance with rules of evidence so post-mortem report which has not been duly proved, may not offer any help to prosecution. With these observations, the Court observed that the evidence on record is from highly interested witnesses and cannot be relied upon to hold accused guilty. There is no corroboration from any independent source and taking everything cumulatively would lead us to say that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against accused, so case fails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
