Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 17: The Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh upheld the life imprisonment awarded to two convicts, Dev Raj and Balwan Singh, in infamous the 2001 JDA office double murder case that shocked Jammu city more than two decades ago.
The bench, comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, dismissed the appeals filed by the convicts and sustained the order of the Sessions Judge, Jammu, which had sentenced them to life imprisonment for the murder of Pardeep Kumar alias Deepa and Kamal Raj alias Pappu.
The case dates back to April 24, 2001, when a bitter dispute over the KMD bus stand booking counter escalated into violence inside the JDA office complex at Panama Chowk. On that day, the deceased Pardeep Kumar and Kamal Raj had gone to attend proceedings before the JDA authorities when they were confronted by Balwan Singh and co-accused Gandharb Singh (since deceased), accompanied by Dev Raj, then serving as Gandharb Singh’s Personal Security Officer.
During a heated exchange, Balwan Singh allegedly exhorted his associates to kill the rival party. Acting on this, Dev Raj opened fire with his service AK-56 rifle, killing Deepa and Pappu on the spot, while eyewitness Sanjeev Kumar was beaten and thrown from a window but survived with injuries.
The trial court had convicted the accused in 2009 under Sections 302, 307, 326, 109 and 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code, awarding life imprisonment and fines. While the appellants claimed Dev Raj fired in private defence, the High Court rejected this argument, observing that the deceased were unarmed and posed no immediate threat.
“The firing of eight rounds from a service rifle at unarmed persons far exceeded any lawful measure of self-defence,” the bench noted. The judges further held that the act was deliberate, motivated by long-standing enmity, and carried out with clear intent to kill.
Upholding the trial court’s judgment, the Division Bench cancelled the bail bonds of the appellants and directed them to surrender before the trial court to undergo the remaining sentence. The court also remarked that misuse of an official weapon by a PSO at the instigation of his protectors could not be condoned under the guise of self-defence. (JNF) |
