news details |
|
|
| Father acquitted from charge of murdering his son. | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 02- Setting aside the impugned order of the trial court sentencing Govind Singh to life imprisonment for murdering his son, the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has acquitted the accused from the charge and issued directions that he shall be set free forthwith if not required in any other case
The Division Bench comprising Justice Nirmal Singh and Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar in the approved for reporting judgment written by Justice Nirmal Singh for the Bench, referred various judgments and gone through the judgment of the Trial Court and also the statements of the witnesses, observed that Trial Court created evidence for the prosecution which is not the function of the Court. If there was any doubt with regard to existing or otherwise of the word “not” in the evidence given by the ballistic expert in his cross examination then the Trial Court should have called the witnesses and made it clear whether he has stated so or not, if the word “not” was to be struck off, then the Defence had a right to cross examine the witness on that point. But when the evidence has come on record and the witnesses and Presiding Officer has signed it, then, that part of evidence of the prosecution or Defence cannot be read in any other way-by observing that this is a clerical mistake. Therefore, as to why the Trial Court has observed that this is a topographical error is not understandable.
The other circumstances relied upon by the Trial Court is that the appellant has given a false explanation about the death of deceased that he committed suicide. It is settled proposition of law that the prosecution has to stand on its on legs and cannot take the benefit of weakness of the Defence. Therefore, mere taking a plea regarding false explanation by the appellant cannot be taken against him, further it has also not proved that empty cartridge was recovered at the instance of the appellant from underneath the mattresses of the bed of his room. Despite all these facts Trial Court has convicted the appellant and this has been done by misreading of the evidence. With these observations Division Bench accepted the appeal and set-aside the judgment of trial and acquitted the appellant from the charges JNF.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
