news details |
|
|
| Amandeep murder case | | Court clarifies its order, directs SIT to allow accused to meet counsels once in 24 hours CJM puts SIT to notice for leveling certain allegations | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 25-Clarifying his order dated November 21 regarding the assistance of advocates during investigation of Choudhary brothers involved in fudging evidence in the much publicized Amandeep murder case, Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu YP Bourney today directed the SIT to allow the accused to meet their counsel at such intervals and for such duration as is just and reasonable preferably in the morning or evening hours or both but at least once in 24 hours. However, the Court took serious note of the allegations in the application filed by SIT, in which it has not only leveled allegations of creating ruckus by the advocates but has also pleaded in clear terms that order of the Court has made it impossible to interrogate the accused. The Court put to notice SIT to clarify its position on affidavit for making such accusation which ex-facie is contemptuous of the court order.
This significant order has been passed in an application filed by SIT constituted to investigate the Amandeep murder case seeking directions to the order of the Court of CJM whereby the accused while being remanded to custody were permitted to be assisted by a counsel during the course of custodial interrogation. The counsels nominated for legal assistance to the accused have filed their objections by way of affidavits.
After hearing Chief Prosecuting Officer Pawan Khajuria appearing for the SIT and senior advocate M A Goni for Choudhary brothers, CJM observed that it seems to be more a case of misinterpretation of the order by both the parties in their own way to suit their own interest. The counsel for the accused have projected a case that the order has permitted them to remain present during the entire process of interrogation of Choudhary Nagar Singh, Jaggar Singh and Rakesh Kumar whereas, SIT has, in a way conveyed their inability to associate the advocates with the entire process of interrogation without understanding true import of the Court order. These circumstances have necessitated this Court to intervene in the interest of justice for ensuring that the processes of law are not subverted by either.
Court has allowed the accused to have the services of their advocates during the course of their custodial interrogation for which they have been remanded. However, the court has in no way permitted the advocates for the accused to remain present and be watchful to process of interrogation. Advocates are to provide legal assistance only and it is not job of advocate to provide physical and moral support to the accused. It is also not the duty of an advocate to monitor the entire interrogation proceedings. Court observed that custodial interrogation is a private dialogue between the accused and the investigator to watch and the third party has no locus to attend. It also needs no mention that a reasonable opportunity has to be given to the accused to meet their advocates at such intervals of the time so that the right of the accused is not reduced to a formality.
CJM Jammu further observed that since both the parties have not been able to arrive at a consensus, it has become imperative for the Court to intervene and regulate the proceedings so that the process of law is not subverted.
J P Nanda Advocate for the accused submitted that since he was unable to assist the accused due to his preoccupation and suggested the name of advocate Ajay Singh Kotwal who will attend the accused henceforth. JNF.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
