news details |
|
|
| Out of nine accused, one died during trial, three during appeal | | HC decides criminal case after 28 years | |
Jammu, Nov 13
Justice Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain decided a criminal case after 28 years, which was registered on June 17, 1978 and Court below awarded sentence in 1986 and appeal decided after 20 years in 2006.
According to the prosecution case nine accused namely Ghulam Mustafa alias Musa, Mukhtiar Ahmed, Abdul Latif, Abdul Qayoom, Abdul Kabir, Mod Akbar, Shamas Din, Lassa Bhat and Sattar Sheikh were charge-sheeted by the Bhaderwah Police u/s 397 (robbery with serious injury), 307 (attempt to murder), 395 (dacoity), 170 (personating to be Government a employee) RPC. It is said that one Ghulam Mohd lodged a report in the P/S Gandoh on June 17, 1978 stating there in that during the night intervening 14/15 June 1978 while he was sleeping with his family in his house at Village Nagni Batota Gandoh, accused Ghulam Mustafa, Lassa Bhat, Sattar Sheikh, Dulla Tantary and Shamas Din entered in his house, assaulted his parents and inflicted injuries with sharp edged weapons with an intention to kill them. They wrapped his father’s body in a blanket and threw in the field with the intention to kill him. He raised hue and cry due to which the assailants ran away from the spot. It was further stated that accused committed robbery as they took away hand-bag containing currency notes, Pashmina Shawls, Blankets, radio, golden ornaments and some utensils from his house. Some neighbourers reached on spot and due to their intervention they were saved. His parents were taken to Doda hospital where medical treatment was given to them. After eight years trial Sessions Judge Bhaderwah on October 30, 1986 awarded sentence under above said sections to undergo nine years imprisonment. The accused against this judgment filed appeal in the High Court in 1986,which was decided this month. During trial accused Sattar Sheikh had died whereas accused Ghulam Mustafa, Mukhtiar Ahmed and Lassa Bhat died during the proceedings of this appeal.
Justice Hussain after appearing counsel for the accused whereas nobody appeared for the state to argue to the case and gone through the statement of the prosecution witnesses observed that on consideration of the matter, Court find sufficient evidence on file to establish the offence u/s 307/323 RPC against the accused Shamas Din. Prosecution witnesses have in one voice deposed that accused Ghulam Mustafa, Sattar Shiekh, Shamas Din and Lassa Bhat committed the act as they trespassed into the house complainant and assaulted and injured the parents of the complainant. Thus the trial Court has rightly found these accused guilty of the offence. Since out of these, only accused Shamas Din is alive so Court need not to go to the evidence of the witnesses against other 3 accused persons. So far as other accused are concerned admittedly they have not trespassed into the house of the complainant and have not actually participated into the act of assault and alleged theft. The witnesses have stated that they were standing out side the house. On appreciation of the evidence, Court doubt whether the witnesses were stating the truth while speaking about the presence of these accused persons at the scene of occurrence as it most improbable that at the dead of night and in the circumstances the injured were assaulted. It was possible for the witnesses to see the accused standing outside the house. Even the FIR, which is first in time about the occurrence, does not give the names of these accused persons. On careful consideration of the matter, the Court is of the view the name of other accused persons has been added just too falsely implicate them. The finding of the Trial Court about their guilt is not based on proper appreciation of the evidence.
In the circumstances the findings of the Trial Court convicting other accused and sentencing them to various imprisonments cannot stand. In case of Shamas Din only offences U/Ss 307/323 RPC is made out against him. On the question of sentence Court find in view of the proved allegations, one month’s simple imprisonment u/s 307 RPC and seven days simple imprisonment u/s 323 RPC will meet the ends of justice. The period of detention if any be adjusted towards the present sentence. With these observations and orders the High Court partly allowed the appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
