news details |
|
|
| Final hearing in Chopra murder case on May 5 | | |
Early times report
Jammu, Apr 19: Division Bench High Court comprising Chief Justice Dr. Aftab Hussain Saikia and Justice Virender Singh after hearing Sr. Adv Sunil Sethi appearing for the Puneet Chopra son of deceased R B Chopra, fixed May 5, 2010 for final hearing.
LPA was filed by Puneet Chopra son of deceased RB Chopra against judgment Single Judge passed on October 30, 2009 whereby the Single Judge permitted the state police to investigate the matter and present challan in the Court of law. In the petition it has been submitted that in an unfortunate incident occurred on September 17, 2006 three members of the appellant's family including his father RB Chopra, mother Madhu Chopra and his sister Saloni Chopra were murder at their residence in Trikuta Nagar. Besides driver Jagan Nath and a house helper Sonu were also murdered. All this happened when the appellant and his younger brother were studying in Australia. A case u/s 302 RPC was registered. In the LPA it was further submitted that it is admitted case of investigating agency that the father of the appellant was a business tycoon and has many business partners as well as business rivals but for the reasons best known to the investigating agency miserably failed to put all the business associates of deceased RB Chopra to thorough examination despite the availability of these suspects and said that writ court has not appreciated the matter in its proper perspective despite the fact that the appellant as well as SIT has placed on record sufficient material to arrive at the conclusion that gruesome murder of appellant's family was handiwork of business contemporaries, which was just executed by the persons who were hired from the outside the state but despite overwhelming evidence, the writ court has not taken into consideration the motive behind the murder of appellant's family but only taken the second part which is the manner in which nefarious design was executed and by whom it was executed but fail to appreciate startling facts that on whose instance it has been executed as such the judgment impugned does not survive is liable to be set-aside and seeking CBI investigation in the case. ---JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
