news details |
|
|
| Murder accused gets life imprisonment | | | early times report
Jammu, June 25: The Principal Sessions Judge Jammu, BL Bhat today awarded life imprisonment to a murder accused. The accused was also fined Rs 5000.
Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Mr. BL Bhat today awarded life-imprisonment to accused Fazal Hussain s/o Noor Mohd Gundi Tehsil Budhal District Rajouri who was facing trial for committing murder of Wazir Mohd s/o Fayia r/o Gundi Tehsil Budhal District Rajouri on May 30, 2002.
According to the police, Bagh Hussain produced Wazir Mohd S/O Fayia R/O Gundi Bela, Tehsil Budhal, District Rajouri at PP Chinore on May 30,2002. The injured was in a state of unconsciousness. Bagh Hussain lodged a verbal report with police Chinore alleging therein that the injured Wazir Mohd and accused Fazal Hussain S/O Noor Mohd R/O Gundi,Tehsil Budhal were sharing a common room at Roop Nagar. Accused Fazal Hussain had evicted the injured from the room in the previous evening as the accused suspected illicit relations of injured Wazir Mohd with his wife. Allegedly, this created bitterness between the injured and accused and the accused made a murderous assault on the injured outside the room occupied by the accused. It was alleged that the accused assaulted the injured early in the morning at 6.00 a.m inflicting serious injury in his head, in consequence the injured fell down unconscious and the accused escaped from the spot. The information lodged by Bagh Hussain led to recording of report Daily Dairy of May 30,2002 at PP Chinore u/s 307 RPC.
The injured was referred to GMC Hospital Jammu for treatment. Case under FIR no. 126/2002 was registered at P/S Domana for offence u/s 307 RPC and the investigation was entrusted to Sub- Inspector Bupinder Singh. The accused was arrested on the same day and subjected to interrogation. He made a disclosure statement resulting in recovery of the weapon of offence at his instance. The deceased died on the same day in GMC Hospital Jammu. The investigation revealed that the deceased Wazir Mohd and his daughter were putting up in the room taken on rent by the accused and his wife since 3/4months. On May, 20 2002, accused forcibly drove out the deceased from the room alleging that the later had developed illicit relations with his wife. On May, 30, 2002 at 6.00 a.m the deceased brought Bagh Hussain to the room of accused for resolving the dispute.
When the deceased reached near the room of accused, the accused assaulted him with a Gainti inflicting serious injuries on his head which proved fatal. The material assembled during investigation including the opinion of experts established commission of offence u/s 302 RPC against the accused.
After completion of the investigation the challan was presented before the competent court for judicial determination.
The learned judge in his 31 page judgment after hearing Public Prosecutor Shabir Ahmed observed that prosecution has succeeded in discharging onus of proof and charge u/s 302 RPC stands established the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused is accordingly convicted u/s 302 RPC and ordered that case shall come up for hearing on quantum of sentence in afternoon.
While awarding the life-imprisonment to the accused Fazal Hussain who was facing trial for last eight years further observed that accused stands convicted offence u/s 302 RPC and, in the context of sentence, choice lies between the Capital sentence and the Life term.
The accused/convict is proved to have committed murder of one Wazir Mohd using a Gainti as weapon of offence. Evidence brought on record by prosecution establishes that the deceased and the accused, both hailing from a remote village of district Rajouri. They shared a room with wife of accused and daughter of deceased also putting up in the same room. All the four lived under one roof.
Accused suspected that the deceased had developed illicit relations with his wife and he harbored ill-will against the deceased. It appears that the complainant Bagh Hussain has exhibited ignorance in regard to the alleged illicit liaison between the deceased and wife of the accused. As stated elsewhere, he has turned hostile to prosecution, but supported the substratum of the prosecution case. It has been found that the FIR was recorded on the basis of verbal report of complainant Bagh Hussain. The report clearly attributes to complainant that the accused was suspicious of illicit liaison between his wife and the deceased.
Other eye-witness Shah Begum, daughter of deceased it was unexpected that she would support the theory of her father leading immoral life.
This is apart from the fact that prosecution witness was a child deeply attached to her father and having witnessed his gruesome murder, it is too much to expect that she would portray her father as an immoral person. Be that as it may, the evidence in regard to alleged motive of crime, even if not of very strong character, does not seriously reflect upon the prosecution version. Motive of crime assumes importance when the case rests exclusively on circumstantial evidence.
Even absence of motive may not be of much significance as the motive may develop at any time before or at the time of commission of offence. Therefore, lack of substantive evidence in regard to the alleged motive of crime in the instant case may at the most be a factor in considering that the case does not fall within the category of rarest of rares cases.
Drawing up a balance sheet of aggravating factors and the extenuating circumstances for awarding sentence appropriate to the level of guilt proved in this case, it appears that proof of guilt of accused rests upon the testimony of child witness and the recovery of weapon of offence. The accused is not shown to have a previous criminal record.
It emanates from evidence on record that there was some dispute between the deceased and the accused with regard to accounts and the deceased was insisting upon settlement of accounts. Given the character of evidence brought on record by prosecution, it is abundantly clear that the instant case is not an instance of diabolical murder where the culpability of the accused has assumed extreme depravity. The accused cannot be termed as menace to the society. In absence of aggravating factors life term is the appropriate sentence and capital punishment is uncalled for. The convict is accordingly sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/-. ---JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
