Added: Dusty Arzola - Date: 22.08.2021 17:03 - Views: 11940 - Clicks: 4535
Free for one month and pay only if you like it. By way of the instant appeal a challenge is laid to the judgment dated 7th of April,passed by the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in the case arising out of FIR No. To the extent necessary, the facts giving rise to the case are briefly noted hereafter:. A, Sainik colony, Jammu. During the course of this inquiry, the investigating officer visited the spot, prepared the site plan, took the dead body into police custody, got photography conducted and seized objects items from the spot. The dead boy was shifted to the hospital and a postmortem was conducted there.
Clothes of the deceased were seized in evidence. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section of the Cr. Pursuant to the order No. The postmortem report was obtained from the doctor, wherein it was opined that the death in the case was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. These queries were responded to on 22nd of May, by Dr.
The Doctor observed that in most cases of strangulation, the death is homicidal or otherwise. In response to the second query, Doctor observed that struggle marks may not always be present if the victim is asleep or slightly under any any sedative.
It was also stated that the injury noted on 2 of the postmortem report could not be due to hanging.
In view of the above that the SDPO had observed that in view of the above, the deceased had not died due to hanging, but someone had killed him and then hung him with a rope in an under construction shop, observing that prima facie the death of the deceased was due to strangulation committed by somebody else. During investigation, the investigating officer contacted two persons Rekha Devi and Raj Devi, two cousins, on the basis of call details found on telephone of the deceased, who were also examined as prosecution witnesses. These two witnesses disclosed that Vijay Kumar happened to be the brother-in-law jija of the deceased Harbans Lal; that Vijay Kumar used to come to their house and was adamant to kill Harbans Lal.
Vijay Kumar used to beat his wife and she had returned to their parents. It was also disclosed that when Vijay Kumar came to take his wife back, there was a quarrel between the deceased Harbans Lal and Vijay Kumar, when Harbans Lal slapped him. At this, Vijay Kumar had threatened to kill Harbans Lal and also threatened these two ladies. As per these ladies, Vijay Kumar threatened the deceased to kill him and even threatened the ladies after the cremation of the deceased that if they did not maintain silence they would also meet the same fate.
Again premised on the disclosure of the accused of Vijay Kumar, the investigating officer recorded the statements of Omkar Chand and Dharampal as two eye witnesses.
The statements of these two witnesses were also got recorded under Section A of Cr. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed wherein it was stated that Vijay Kumar would often beat his wife who was the sister of the deceased Harbans Lal and Vijay Kumar resented Harbans Lal's intervention, asking him to refrain from doing so. For this reason, Vijay Kumar had threatened the deceased many times to kill him and finally in the evening of 8 th of February, when he got opportunity, he along with Sukhdev Raj Kala-the other accused, killed him at Chowadi Morh by strangulation and thereafter to conceal the crime and to create appearance of the deceased having committed suicide, hung the dead body of the deceased from the iron rod in the roof of the shop No.
The respondents pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. The learned Trial Judge put the incriminating circumstances to the accused persons under Section of the Cr. The accused persons denied the correctness of the same.
After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence lead by the prosecution, by a detailed judgment dated 7th of April,the learned Trial Judge held that the persons examined as eye witnesses to support the prosecution were unreliable and could not be believed.
It was held that the prosecution had failed to establish the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and by the impugned judgment dated 7th of April,the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu acquitted the respondents of the charges for which they had stood trial. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing for the appellant has stated that that the prosecution had placed sufficient material on record to support the charges and that the learned Trial Judge had not appreciated the evidence laid on record nor had correctly applied the law, resulting in the acquittal.
It has been contended before us that the learned trial judge had taken a hyper-technical approach and that the conclusions drawn were against the weight of evidence placed on record. On the other hand, Mr. Mohsin Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the judgment, contending that the prosecution had brought a false case against the respondents and that there was no material at all to support the culpability of the respondents in the commission of offence.
State of Punjab. Brahmananda Nanda wherein the evidence of a witness who had delayed disclosure of the names of the accused by one and half day was rejected as untrustworthy. State of Punjabwherein an improvement regarding the dying declaration in the Court which was not stated before the police was rejected. We have been carefully taken through the entire record of the case and have given our considered thought to the submissions made by both sides.
These witnesses had claimed that the two of them along with the deceased Harbans Lal, have used to work in a shop at City Chowk and that on 8th of February, in the evening of 8th of February,they had together left on a scooter for Purmandal Morh from the City Chowk, Jammu, for the reason that the deceased had requested them to drop him there as his brother-in-law Vijay Kumar had called him. These two witnesses thereafter given an even stranger. The witnesses stated that the deceased Harbans Lal ed his brother-in-law in a white Van No. As per the witnesses, Vijay Kumar had requested them to accompany and follow them on their scooter.
According to these two witnesses, the accused drove the vehicle from Sainik Colony towards Chowadi road, stopped at an open place, started quarrelling with the deceased outside the Van in which they tried to intervene, but did not succeed.
As per these witnesses, Vijay Kumar gave a blow of something or a kick, due to which the deceased fell down, where after Sukhdev brought out two ropes from the vehicle and they tied the hands of the deceased, put the other rope around his neck and pulled the same, threatening the two witnesses, if they disclosed the occurrence to anybody, they would face the same consequences which the deceased has faced. Thereafter, the accused put the deceased in the vehicle, while these two witnesses ran away. It was claimed that the accused drove the vehicle towards Sainik Colony, stopped outside at a shop there, brought out the deceased and hung him from iron rod saria in the said shop.
We may note the incisive analysis conducted by the learned Trial Judge of the inquest proceedings and the statements given by the CRAA No. The learned Trial Judge has also discussed the discrepancies and material contradictions in the evidence led by the prosecution rendering the same as unworthy of credence. The learned Trial Judge Date or hang out 4th of anr relationship found the excuse of fear on of threat from the accused persons as unacceptable in view of the contradictory conduct of the two witnesses.
These two witnesses have claimed that despite the threats, despite the first act of strangulation as alleged, despite their fear, these two witnesses still followed the accused persons to the spot wherefrom the deceased was hung. Such conduct has been found to be unbelievable. The witnesses clearly admitted that this occurrence took place on 8 th of February, These witnesses made no effective effort to protect the deceased even though they were related to him. It was in the testimony of the two witnesses that there were residential houses around the shop where the deceased was hung, yet they did not make any hue and cry for help and quietly drove on to their own house.
In order to explain their conduct of this silence, they claimed that this was out of fear from the accused persons. The witnesses did not disclose the occurrence to any person on the next day or when the deceased was cremated. It has come in evidence that to reach the shop from the place of strangulation, they had to cross an army gate, and several busy areas.
At this point, the two witnesses who admittedly were not under any physical control of the accused but for independently riding their scooter, made no effort to inform any person. These witnesses do not have admittedly stated that the accused persons were not in possession of weapons at all.
This conduct in remaining silent has been considered as most unnatural. We find that in the instant case, the silence of these two eye witnesses was not for a short period but for a long period from 8th of February, CRAA No. Such a delay may be expected as reasonable if there is a plausible explanation for the same. In the instant case, apart from a bald claim of threats from the accused persons and fear for their lives, there is no material to support the same. The trial court has noted that the witnesses had categorically stated that accused was not possessing any weapon at the time of occurrence.
The learned Trial Court has also noted the distance between the residences of the accused persons from that of the witnesses observing that the accused could not have been in constant contact of the witnesses and that the distance itself would have dissipated any threat or fear.
It has also been observed that the witnesses were working at places which were located far away from the location of the accused persons. Keeping in view the closeness of the relationship of these witnesses with the deceased, the learned Trial Judge has refused to accept the explanation of fear because of the threat from the accused persons.
We see no reason to all to take a contrary view. We also find from the record and the case diary that PW-Karan Chalotra has stated that the statement of Omkar Chand was recorded by the police under Section of the Cr. On the contrary, he merely informed the police that on 8th of February,the accused had left for his house at 6 pm from the place of his work.
Thangi and concluded that the evidence lead by the prosecution suffers from a serious infirmity in that the eye witnesses had kept silence for a period of over two years three months and had not CRAA No. We find that even though in a case of direct evidence as the present where the prosecution was placing reliance on the testimony of the eye witnesses, the learned Trial Judge has rightly observed that aspect of motive for the crime becomes irrelevant, however, the learned Trial Judge has dwelt on the evidence lead by the prosecution to establish the motive for the occurrence.
On this aspect, the learned Trial Judge found the testimony of these two related witnesses Rekha Devi and Raj Devi suspect.
The learned Trial Judge has noted that the statement of Sardari Lal, father of the deceased was recorded under Section of the Cr. The other witnesses namely Kaka Ram, Gopal and Madan Lal whose statement was recorded on 13th of February, also made no mention of either of the earlier incident regarding the slapping or suspicion about the involvement of the accused persons.
The conclusions of the learned Trial Judge are premised on a consideration of judicial precedents reported at 3 SCCState of Punjab vs. Another circumstance which has been found unnatural and completely unacceptable is the evidence of PW Nos. The learned Trial Judge has found it improbable that any person who is going to commit the offence of murder would inform two persons to be eye witnesses to the commission of offence.
The conclusions of the learned Trial Judge are based on an in depth analysis of the entire evidence lead by the prosecution and application of judicial principles. It is well settled that a judgment of acquittal is not to be lightly disturbed. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court observed thus Sindhu Sharma Judge Dated: 4. Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer. Cites 10 docs - [ View All ].
State Of Orissa vs Mr. Brahmananda Nanda on 31 August, Through PrincipalDate or hang out 4th of anr relationship
email: [email protected] - phone:(886) 416-3252 x 7324
How does a polyamorous relationship between four people work?