news details |
|
|
| Court acquitted Woman and other facing trail cheating the Army for family pension | | |
Jammu, September, 30:- In an interesting case that accused Ram Piyari w/o Bindru Ram Brahman managed sanction of Family pension of late Bindru Ram Rajput by showing herself widow of late Rajput in spite of the fact that Bindru Ram Rajput had not married by a fake claim got an amount of 1,14,000/- as pension dues arrears, Second Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Mr. AK Koul today acquitted Ram Piyari and Gian Singh both resident of Chowki Chora Akhnoor as the CBI failed to prove the case.
According to the CBI case in August 1999 on a source report that Ram Piyari w/o Bindru Ram Brahman and Gian Singh along with some other persons have entered in a criminal conspiracy to manage sanction of Family pension of late Bindru Ram Rajput in favour of Ram Piyari by showing that Ram Piyari is the widow of Bindru Ram Rajput whereas Rajput was unmarried. They forged the documents to support a fake claim and got an amount of Rs 1, 14, 000/- as pension dues and arrears through deceitful means and so defrauded the public exchequer. A case u/s 120-B/419/420/467/468/471 RPC was registered by the CBI and conducted investigation and after completion of the investigation presented Challan in the Court of law.
While acquitting the accused Mr. Ashok Kumar Koul Second Additional Sessions Judge Jammu after hearing Special Public Prosecutor Mr. SK Bhat appearing for the CBI and Advocate GR Asgar appearing for the accused observed that Bindru Ram Rajput was unmarried as per the statement of Tota Ram and Ram Piyari was married to Bindru Ram Brahman. This version again does not lead anywhere, even if accept this version, it does not proved exactly what was required that is accused Ram Piyari made false pension claim, the other witnesses also given the similar version. According to prosecution witness Bal Krishan Sharma that Ram Piyari was drawing pension of her husband, through her account, she may have drawn the sanctioned amount, but that is different issue.
Court further observed that who was it sanctioned, who applied for it, who verified the accused withdrawn a particular amount, it may be a question of a mistaken identity and may ultimately give rise to a civil liability, but so far as penal liability is concerned, it cannot be fastened on the accused. Prosecution Witness Babu Singh is an official of DPDO an agency supposed to deal with pension cases of retd Army personal. He says that pension of Ram Piyari, was settled before his posting in the said office. Court with no option but to say that prosecution has failed to make out the case against either of the accused. There are so many doubtful areas, where one is not in a position to say anything with certainty. Accused Ram Piyari might have received some amount in-genuinely, but that is not sufficient to hold that she had any role in all what is alleged. Investigating Agency (CBI) though a Premier Agency of India, has not been able to concentrate on main issues to create a link between accused and the crime, As such the prosecution agency failed to create a clear nexus between the guilt and so called guilty, the case as such fails and dismissed, accused are acquitted being giving the benefit of doubt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
