Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, June 2: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Rajesh Sekhri has upheld the life-imprisonment awarded to five persons of a family in double murder case over property dispute.
On 07.09.2011 one Jaipal Singh, son of Vishwa Nath of Sadhota Udhampur telephonically informed the police that unknown person(s) has committed the murder of Krishni Devi, wife of Situ and Parkash Singh, son of Chuni Lal.
On the basis of this information, FIR No.38/2011 under Section 302 RPC was registered and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, challan was presented and Trial Court on February 3, 2020 awarded life-imprisonment to Prem Nath, Sita Ram, Krishan Chand, sons of Massu, Babu Ram, son of Sita Ram and Guddi, son of Massu all residents of Sadhota Mohra Sanal .
After hearing Advocate Anmol Sharma for the accused persons whereas AAG RS Jamwal for the UT, the DB observed, “it has been established beyond doubt that there was enmity between the deceased and the appellant-Prem Nath on account of the fact that appellant-Prem Nath was claiming whole of the property left behind by the husband of deceased-Krishni Devi, who happened to be his aunt, but deceased-Krishni Devi wanted to give whole of the property to her grandson, deceased-Parkash Singh to the exclusion of appellant-Prem Nath”.
“On account of this dispute, the appellant-Prem Nath in conspiracy with other appellants, who happen to be his brothers and nephew thought of committing murder of both the deceased so as to achieve his objective of succeeding to the property of Situ, husband of deceased-Krishni Devi”, the DB said, adding “after the occurrence, appellants absconded and they were arrested from a cave inside the forest when the Police launched a massive manhunt. Though the circumstance of abscondence is also a week circumstance for connecting the accused to the crime, yet when read with other circumstances, it does point to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused”.
“It has also been established that weapons of offence and objects stained with the blood of the deceased were recovered on the basis of disclosure statements made by the appellants from the places regarding which only the appellants had the knowledge”, the DB said, adding “we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this court”.
Accordingly, DB accepted the reference made by the trial court and confirmed the order of sentence.
Follow our WhatsApp channel