news details |
|
|
| HC dismisses Revision Petition filed against Session Court judgement | | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | Mar 29
Dismissing a Revision Petition filed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Poonch, filed primary with regard to acquittal earned by the accused of main charge of Section 302 RPC, Justice Virender Singh of J&K High Court on Saturday held that “present case does not fall in gravest form to define it as ‘murder’. It cannot be termed as culpable homicide of second degree falling within mischief of Section 304-I. Therefore, it will fall within ambit of Section 304-II only, as already held by trial Court. In my opinion, on this aspect, perhaps the present case does not call for any further discussion.”
Justice Singh further observed that “the learned trial Court has rightly segregated case of accused Inzar Ahmad with regard to main offence so far as applicability of Section 149 RPC is concerned by holding that common object of unlawful assembly in facts of present case, was not to cause death of deceased or such bodily injury, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, the common object was to cause hurt. This is reason that qua other offences viz under Sections 326 and 324 RPC, the trial Court has applied Section 149 RPC. This cannot be said to be an illegal approach apparent on record.”
Earlier, A. V. Gupta, Sr. Advocate submitted that impugned judgment for acquittal of accused is not sustainable for simple reason that once trial Court has returned a finding that unlawful assembly was formed by all accused and they had trespassed into land of complainant, then each one was liable for act of other, as such, recording the conviction of accused Inzar Ahmad only for main charge may be under Section 304-II RPC is bad on face of it. According to Gupta even if it is said to be a case of fastening an individual liability, still accused Inzar Ahamd has no escape from Section 302 RPC as he was one, who was armed with knife and caused fatal blow.
Per contra, the counsel for accused supported impugned judgment and stated that there is no infirmity apparent on record. Even otherwise, the complainant has very limited right of being heard in case of acquittal earned by accused in a State case, as the same cannot be converted into conviction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
