news details |
|
|
| HC upholds life-imprisonment in murder case | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 13: A high court division bench of Justice Hasnain Masoodi and Justice Janak Raj Kotwal, in an appeal filed by Suresh Kumar who was convicted and awarded life-imprisonment by the trial court, upheld the life-imprisonment and dismissed the appeal. According to the prosecution case, on July 20, 2005, Krishan Chand (deceased/victim) accompanied by his minor son Sanjeev Kumar had gone for purchasing toffees from shop of Isher Dass falling near his house in village Dhirti, Udhampur. When they were returning home after purchasing the toffees, the appellant (accused) fired a shot through his 12 bore SB gun on the victim from behind in his back. He fell on the road when the accused fired another shot in his head which ruptured his brain. He died on spot. His father Badri Nath then lodged a written report at Katra police station at 9 pm. FIR No. 159/05 under sections 302 of RPC and 3/25 of Arms Act was registered and police took up the investigation.
The I O, after investigation, found that Badri Nath and the accused's grandfather Ram Saran were cousins and neighbours as well. They were nourishing enmity for 8-9 years on account of right to way and water and because of that enmity, the two sides used to quarrel with each other and were not on talking terms and the appellant had threatened him to kill his son. In sequel to this enmity, the accused shortly before the incident had got himself appointed as retainer of the licensed gun of his grandfather and was in lookout for eliminating the victim. On July 20, 2005, the appellant armed with the said gun followed the victim to the shop and shot him dead when he accompanied by his son was returning home after purchasing toffees from the said shop. On completion of investigation, the I O presented chargesheet under sections 302 of RPC and 5/27/30 of Arms Act against the accused. The bench, after hearing both the sides, observed that it was argued by counsel that prosecution has exaggerated a trivial incident between the two neighbours as a motive on the part of the appellant to eliminate the victim which neither has any substance nor has been proved so the accused cannot be connected with commission of the serious offence of murder on the basis of such a motive. It also observed that the court do not find any substance in the argument of counsel and found that sufficient evidence in the depositions of aforementioned three eyewitnesses about strained relations between the two sides because of a dispute relating to use of water.
With these observations, the bench said it does not find any merit in the grounds on which the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and have rather found that the trial court has carefully and properly appreciated the evidence and applied settled principles of law while recording conviction against the accused and imposing the sentence. The judgment rendered by the trial court, therefore, does not deserve any interference in appeal and dismissed the appeal as without any merit and conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is upheld. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
