news details |
|
|
| Court acquits accused facing trial in double murder case | | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | June 1
1st Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Puneet Gupta acquitted Lal Babu Shah r/o Bihar presently Narwal-Pain Jammu who was facing trail in a double murder case of his wife and son.
Court in the detailed judgment passed strictures regarding the investigation conducted by the concerned police and observed that after the 19 days of the occurrence and on the third day of his arrest, the disclosure statement is to be viewed in the light of alleged recovery and other circumstances that appear in the prosecution case. It is very pertinent to point out and it is admitted case of the prosecution also that the accused and his family occupied only one room out of three in the premises. The knife and shirt are alleged to have been seized from the room of the accused where he was putting up with his family. As per the recovery memo one blood stained shirt was got recovered and one knife from the room.
The occurrence has taken place on April 18, 2006 and the recovery is affected on May 7, 2006 from the room of the accused. Does it mean that the police did not even care to search the room where two dead-bodies were found and could not lay their hands on the blood-stained shirt and knife from the room or that the police was waiting for the accused to make disclosure statement and then recover both articles from the room of the accused?
It would absolutely illogical if the Court is to be believe the prosecution version that the recovery was affected from the room of the accused and that too after 18 days of the occurrence merely because lock of the room was opened when accused was taken to his room for affecting recovery. If this version is to be accepted than only outcome of the same is that police agency did not carry out any sought of investigation in the case till May 7, 2006 or at lease did not search the room. It is but natural that the police would first of all search the place of occurrence and try to get clues from the place of occurrence. Court is not convinced with the recovery aspect, which is made from the room of the accused even if the disclosure statement is to be accepted as it is. Recovery of gainti is alleged to have been affected from corner of the house, as the gainti is recovered from open place after 18 days of occurrence, any body could have access to that place and it has not come on record that only accused could have exclusive approach or knowledge to the place where the gainti is alleged to have been concealed. Recovery of said gainti becomes doubtful and no credibility can be given to the same. Court further holds that it appears the police agency was never serious in investigating the crime which took away lives of two innocent persons. With these observations Court acquitted the accused hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt.
According to the prosecution case that on April 18, 2006 reliable information was received in the p/s Satwari about the dead-bodies of Sangeeta Devi and her son vikas Kumar who have been murdered by someone and lying in the room of the premises owned by Raj Kumari and narwal-pain and registered a case u/s 302/449 RPC and investigation started. During the investigation it was revealed that accused Lal Babu Shah Husband of the deceased was not having good relation with his wife and had suspicion about the character of his wife. On April 18, 2006 the accused alleged to have left the factory and came back at about 4:00 PM and committed the offence in the meantime.
While court acquitted the accused observed that the prosecution is absolutely silent about the person, who the accused suspected to have extra-martial relation with his wife. The evidence which has been otherwise brought on record does not suggest any extra-martial relationship of the deceased with anyone or that the accused had any suspicion against his wife on this score and not believe the same. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
