| HC reopens 2005 murder bid case, slams trial court, prosecution for failure of justice | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 9: In a significant judicial intervention, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ordered reopening of a nearly two-decade-old attempt-to-murder case, expressing serious concern over the failure of the prosecution, investigating agency and trial court to ensure examination of crucial witnesses during a trial that continued for seven-and-a-half years.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Yash Paul Bourney, while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the erstwhile J&K Code of Criminal Procedure, directed that the case be remanded for trial in accordance with law, preferably to be concluded within six months of receipt of the order.
The matter arose from an alleged murderous assault on September 17, 2005, in the Paloura area of Jammu. According to the prosecution, Sohan Singh alias Sonu was allegedly attacked with sharp-edged weapons and sticks in connection with a land-related dispute.
Following the incident, FIR No. 94/2005 was registered at Police Station Janipur under Sections 307, 326, 147, 148, 149 and 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code and Sections 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act.
The accused were subsequently acquitted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, on July 26, 2016.
Aggrieved by the acquittal, Dalbeer Singh, one of the injured persons, approached the High Court seeking special leave to appeal under Section 417(2) CrPC.
However, the Division Bench held that the petitioner had no statutory right to maintain such an appeal under the applicable provisions of the erstwhile State Code, particularly because the proceedings originated from a police chargesheet rather than a private complaint.
Despite rejecting the plea for leave to appeal, the High Court examined the trial record and found serious deficiencies in the manner in which the criminal proceedings had been conducted.
The Bench observed that despite numerous opportunities spread over seven-and-a-half years, the prosecution examined only three witnesses, including one injured witness whose examination remained incomplete.
Expressing concern over the proceedings, the Court observed that the prosecution and investigating agency had failed to discharge their responsibilities, while the trial court remained a "mute spectator" throughout.
The Bench noted that the investigating agency had virtually abandoned its responsibility after filing the chargesheet, while the prosecution continued seeking opportunities without ensuring the presence of material witnesses.
Holding that the deficiencies had resulted in a serious failure of the process of law, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to reopen the case and direct its expeditious trial.
The Division Bench emphasised that the operation of law could not be permitted to be subverted by anyone.
Advocate A.K. Shan appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate J.P. Gandhi, along with Advocates Ashok Singh, Nipun Gandhi and Sonam Sharma, represented the respondents.
(JNF) |
|
