news details |
|
|
| Seven arrayed for DyAG’s murder | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Oct 15: The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, ML Manhas today framed charges, in a much publicized murder case of Deputy Advocate General Ajit Singh Dogra, against seven accused and fixed calendar for hearing the case.
The accused including Vishal Sharma alias Vishu, Ashok Kumar alias Shoka, Amresh Khajuria alias Max, Labha Ram alias Sanjay, Raj Kumar alias Raju, Gourav Sharma alias Dana and Mohan Singh alias Munna have been charged u/s 302/341/147/149 RPC.
According to the facts of the case on January 10, 2008 at 4.15 PM when deceased Ajit Singh Dogra along with three advocates namely Kamal Kishore, Ravinder Kumar and Amit Kumar along with brother of the deceased were traveling in a car towards the home of the deceased, the accused Vishu, Shoka and Sanjay, having enmity with the deceased on a land dispute in conspiracy with other accused committed murder of deceased Ajit Singh Dogra near Udhaywala here and accordingly a FIR was registered u/s 302/ 341/147/149/34 RPC r/w section 4/25 Arms Act. After completion of the investigation challan was presented in the court. While framing charges against the accused, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, after perusing the record and arguments on both the sides, referred various judgments of the Apex Court and maintained that it is settled law that at the stage of framing charge, the Court is not required to enter in roving enquiry and weigh and shit the evidence for the purpose of finding out, if the evidence was sufficient to record the conviction of accused. The statements of the prosecution witnesses, to whom the counsel of the accused persons has referred to, are yet to appear during the trial and tender evidence. It is at that time that facts can be got explained by reference to FIR and other material appearing on the record. At this stage, Court has only to be prima-facie satisfied on the grounds of proceedings against the accused. It would be clear that the trust, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously adjudged at the stage of framing the charge, nor any weight attached to the probable defence to be put forth by the accused. But at the initial stage, if there is strong suspicion, which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed any offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. With these observations, Court framed murder charges against the seven accused and fixed calendar for the hearing of the case. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
