STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Vinod Chatterji Koul acquitted Nirmal Singh alias Sikki, son of Bharat Singh, resident of Samyal Pur, Jammu and Vickey Thappa, son of Chaman Lal, resident of Manyal Brahamana, Jammu in murder case and issued notices to witnesses Diler Singh, Ram Ditta and Ranjit Kumar, who had deposed before this Court as well as had given the statements under Section 164-A CrPC.
According to police case, complainant Rahul Kumar on June 1, 2014 made a written complaint with Police Station Domana, Jammu that on June 1, 2014 at about 12.30 PM, accused Nirmal Singh alias Sikki came and stopped his father and argued that he talks a lot against him for which he would have to bear the adverse consequences. Prior to this also, Nirmal Singh had beaten him and threatened to kill him as Nirmal Singh had kidnapped a girl and thereafter married her and at that time, father of the complainant had helped the parents of the girl and for this reason Nirmal Singh was bearing animosity against his father. Thereafter, accused, with an intention to kill complainant’s father, assaulted him. He caught him by neck and threw him on the ground, thereafter took a stone and started hitting his father on the head whereupon, his father became unconscious. Upon this, complainant’s younger sister Pooja and other persons came on spot and accused ran away from the spot in a white coloured Maruti. Thereafter, the complainant along with his sister Pooja and brother-in-law took his father to Marh Hospital where he was declared dead. On the basis of complaint, FIR No. 207/2014 for offence under Sections 302/341 RPC was registered in police station, Domana Jammu.
Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Vinod Chatterji Koul after hearing both the sides observed that in the absence of creditworthy direct evidence, the other formal evidence as discussed above is of no consequence for the prosecution and acquitted the accused.
Before parting with this judgment, court observed that the conduct of the aforesaid witnesses also needs to be seen. “The statements of these witnesses reveal that they had deliberately resiled from their earlier statement made before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164-A CrPC. These witnesses have totally denied the contentions of the statements made under Section 164-A CrPC, in which the allegations of murder have been made against the accused”, the court observed and added that it is not satisfied by their statement that whatever they have deposed was on the direction of the police agency concerned, as they had sufficient time to bring it to the notice of the higher authorities of the police or the Magistrate in case police had made them to state as per their directions.
The Court observed that the act of aforesaid witnesses definitely warrants the action to be taken under 479 B CrPC. Office is directed to issue notice to the above named witnesses in terms of Section 479-B CrPC, directing them to show cause as to why proceedings under aforesaid section be not initiated against them.
Using Laxmi Agarwal as lens to tell larger story on acid violence in India: Meghna Gulzar
I’m totally fine: Shahid Kapoor debunks reports of stomach cancer
Rani Mukerji’s next is ‘Mardaani 2’
ASTROLOGY: WEEKLY PREDICTIONS 09TH –– 15TH DECEMBER 2018
Do you have a narcissistic parent? Here’s how to know!
© 2017 State Times Daily Newspaper