news details |
|
|
| Murder of 60 yrs old lady | | DB confirms life imprisonment | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Feb 16- Dismissing the criminal appeal filed by the accused Ram Pal son of Dhana of Kootah Tehsil Hiranagar, a Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court Jammu Wing comprising Justice Nirmal Singh and Justice Mohammed Yaqoob Mir, today confirmed the sentences awarded by the Sessions Court Kathua on September 8, 2005 whereby the said Court awarded life-imprisonment to the accused for committing murder of 60 years old lady and 26 yrs RI for attempt to murder and other offences.
In the approved for reporting judgment written by Justice Mohammed Yaqoob Mir for the Division Bench, after hearing Adv SK Shukla appearing for the appellant and Additional Advocate General PC Sharma appearing for the State, the Court observed that the only safe result inferable beyond doubt and also as is proved that the accused got exposed while committing intercourse with the so- called victim made deceased to breath the last did put the dead-body beneath the cot, least knowing that the other family members will reach the room of occurrence but while finding them attacked and injured them all. The Trial Court has evaluated and has reached to reasonable and correct conclusion which does not call for interference. The conviction and sentenced awarded against the accused are maintained, sentence of life imprisonment is confirmed; the Division Bench held and dismissed the filed by the convict.
The then Principal Sessions Judge Kathua SL Pandita (now retd) in a much publicized sensational murder case had awarded life-imprisonment u/s 302 for committing murder of 60 year Channo Devi who was mother-in-law of the prosecutrix and attempt to murder and in other offences awarded 26 years RI and fine to accused Ram Pal that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
In his 118- page judgment, the then Principal Sessions Judge Kathua took serious note against the Investigating Officer of the case and said that in the circumstances it appears to have deliberately avoided to make statement before the Court though the then Presiding Officer have issued warrants against him but his presence has not been secured and the evidence in the case has been closed. The conduct of the IO in such a serious case by not appearing as a witness calls for action against him and for that purpose the SP District Kathua be sent the extract of this para of the judgment so that he initiates action against said investigating officer for not appearing as witness before this Court amounting to dereliction of duty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
