news details |
|
|
| Channi Rama murder case: HC dismisses revision petition | | | Jammu, July 13: Jammu and Kashmir State High Court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the some of accused against the charges framed against them for allegedly committing murder of a youth at Channi Rama, Jammu.
Justice YP Nargotra after hearing both the sides observed that the revision petition filed by the accused is without any merit as such it is dismissed accordingly. It was observed by the court that the primia facie the complainant was in possession of the land in dispute, therefore, it appears that the object of all the accused, who were present on the spot, was to deprive the complainant of the enjoyment of the property, of which he was in possession, by means of criminal force.
Therefore, despite the fact that it was only the accused Dilbagh Singh who had fired the shot resulting into the death of deceased, by virtue or Section 149 all members of such assembly would be responsible for the act of accused Dilbagh Singh. In these
Circumstances, the order of learned Sessions Judge charging all the accused/petitioners for commission of the offence under Sections 302,.
The case of the prosecution, as set up in the charge sheet filed in the trial court, was that complainant Suram Singh had filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against accused Dilbagh Singh, Kulwant Singh and Kewal Singh, which came to be decreed by the court directing the defendants to remove their hutment and plinth within one month from the date of order and surrender the vacant possession to the plaintiff in a peaceful manner and further without due course of law not to interfere into three kanals of land
On May 11, 2005, the Suram Singh lodged the report with the concerned Police Station alleging that on that day he along with his friend Gopal Singh and younger brother Nagar Singh went to his own land for construction of boundary wall. They had alleged that when they were about to start the work, Dilbagh Singh and other accused persons had gathered in their (complainant's) land with preparation and common object to kill them, Dilbagh Singh fired at him the complainant but the bullet hit Gopal Singh, who later breathed his last.
The Contention of the counsel for petitioners/accused was that the accused had not intended the murder of Gopal Singh deceased at all, who was not even known to them. He further submitted that only Dilbagh Singh is alleged to have fired upon the deceased,
Therefore, other accused could not have been roped in for making them liable vicariously on the ground of their being members of the unlawful assembly.
After quoting several authorities, the court observed that the legal principle is that for framing the charge the material and the evidence collected by the investigating agency has to be accepted at its face value and after accepting such evidence and material, the question as to whether or not charge is to be framed has to be addressed. The charge is to be framed against the accused if sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused are discernible from the evidence and the material collected during the investigation, the court observed further. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
