news details |
|
|
| DB uphold life-imprisonment in murder case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, June 5: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Rajesh Sekhri uphold the life-imprisonment awarded to one Amarjeet Singh alias Kaka who committed murder of his lover's husband.
According to the police case a report lodged telephonically by complainant Naranjan Singh (9419672967) on 20/06/2010 that at about 7.15 am the accused Amarjeet Singh armed with Khokhri, with intention to commit murder, trespassed into the house of Joginder Singh at Mangnar and attacked him as a result of which the dead body of the said Joginder Singh is lying on spot. During the course of investigation police arrest the accused Amarjeet Singh who while admitting his crime disclosed that he committed the murder of the deceased Joginder Singh because the deceased used to beat his wife regularly. Accused also disclosed that Sunita Kour had informed him (accused) that the deceased had come to know about the illicit relationship of the accused Amarjeet Singh with Sunita Kour.
DB after hearing Advocates AK Shan and Rakesh Khajuria for the appellant whereas Sr AAG Raman Arora for the UT, observed that it is evident that appellant had a pre-plan to kill the deceased, because he appeared in the house of the deceased, armed with a sharp edged weapon. He came to the house of the deceased on the pretext of demanding a motor and an amount of Rs.1,000/- and after brief altercation, he took the deceased to Kacha Kitchen of the house and stabbed him in his chest without any provocation on his part. Not only this, when deceased came out of Kacha Kitchen crying for help and went towards the house of his Uncle, accused chased him and inflicted another stab blow in his neck and killed him on the spot. All the prosecution witnesses have given a vivid and graphic account of the occurrence, which took place in their presence. The clear and unambiguous testimonial potency of the prosecution witnesses is duly supported by the medical evidence and the autopsy report, that two external injuries on the chest and the neck of the deceased were found at the time of post-mortem. The medical officer has also certified that injuries found on the person of the deceased were possible with the weapon of offence i.e. "Khokhri" produced before him by the investigating officer and, according to him, injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient, in the ordinary course, to cause death of the deceased. Recovery and seizure of the weapon of offence consequent upon the disclosure statement of the accused provides ample support to the prosecution case. Though prosecuting agency has failed to get the FIR exhibited, however, in our considered view, since the informant has admitted the contents of the FIR and those of the Roznamcha in his deposition before the trial Court, prosecution case, on this count alone, cannot be thrown overboard. Appellant has failed to show any prejudice caused to him by non-examination of the Investigating Officer in the present case, in particular, in view of meticulous and immaculate version of the eye witnesses to the occurrence.
DB on the analysis of the aforesaid evidence, have no doubt that appellant stabbed the deceased twice, on vital parts of his body, with a sharp edged weapon in furtherance of criminal intention of causing such bodily injury as he knew it to be likely to cause death of the deceased, which act of the appellant does not fall within the exceptions contained in Section 300 RPC. Since appellant trespassed into the house of the deceased, having made preparation for committing his murder, he has been rightly held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 452 RPC. As per SRO 175 dated 23.04.1974 issued by the Government of J&K in exercise of power conferred under Section 4 of the Arms Act 1959, read with Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No. F-18/2/62/(1) PLV dated 01.10.1962 applicable to the State of J&K, acquisition, possession and carrying of a sharp edged weapon with a blade of more than 06 inches long or 02 inches wide is prohibited. As per the sketch of the weapon of offence, EXPW-17-RV/1, it was measuring 14 inches and 6 cms, out of which, 05 inches 06 cms is the handle and 09 inches is the blunt and sharp part of the blade and its breadth is 02 inches in the middle. Therefore, the weapon of offence used by the appellant in the commission of offence, in the present case, being a prohibited weapon, hence, he has been rightly convicted by the trial Court for having in his possession prohibited weapon under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act.
With these observations, Division Bench do not find any illegality much less perversity in the impugned judgment. Findings recorded by the trial court are lucid, well reasoned, well analysed and do not call for interference and observed that the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed and impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are upheld. Appellant, who is already in custody, shall serve the remainder part of his sentence as directed by the trial court.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
