news details |
|
|
| Ultra challenges life term, HC says favours death penalty | | DB issues notice to appellant as to why death penalty is not awarded | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Mar 03- In a criminal appeal filed by Mohammed Amin Dar who was awarded life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge Ramban on August 20, 2002, a Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court Jammu Wing comprising Justice Nirmal Singh and Justice JP Singh today issued notice to the appellant as to why he be not awarded the death penalty, in case, the conviction is upheld. The notice shall be served upon the appellant through Superintendent Kot-Bhalwal Jail where he is presently lodged, the Division Bench ordered.
The appellant Mohammed Amin Dar along with two other accused on October 10, 1995 at about 8:30 PM with criminal intent and armed with lethal weapons forced their entry into the house of deceased Mastan Ali at Nagam, Banihal in order to abduct and kill him sprayed bullets upon him who succumbed to his injuries on the spot. It is further stated in the FIR that accused fled from the spot after committing the crime. The case of the prosecution is that accused being trained terrorist of Hizab-ul-Mujahdeen, a banned organization, involved in separation of State from the Indian Union. The motive behind the crime alleged is to overawe the Government or disrupt harmony of the society and terrorize people and society with a view to disrupt peace and tranquility of the society and create sense of fear. The other two accused were proceeded u/s 512 Cr PC when the present accused at that time was lodged in District Jail Udhampur in some other case and was summoned from there and convicted u/s 302/121-A RPC r/w section 7/ 27 Indian Arms Act.
DB, after hearing Advocate OP Thakur appearing for the appellant and Additional Advocate General SC Gupta appearing for the State, observed that the appellant is alleged to have killed one Mastan Ali with a bullet shot fired from AK-47. Additional Sessions Judge Ramban convicted the appellant and awarded sentence of life-imprisonment and fine of Rs 1000 with further seven year’s RI for possessing AK-47 which comes under the definition of prohibited arms. When there is an act on the part of someone in using the said prohibited arm resulting into death of any other person, then the sentence provided u/s 27 (3) of the Act is only death. Therefore, it has become necessary to issue a notice to appellant as to why he be not awarded death penalty, the Division Bench further ruled. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
