Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, July 31: In a criminal appeal, Division Bench of State High Court comprising Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sanjeev Kumar today upheld life imprisonment awarded to one accused and acquitted eight others.
According to the police case, complainant Abdul Qayoom (brother of the deceased Abdul Rehman) on April 25, 2010 approached Mendhar Police and informed that the non-applicants/accused namely Mohd Javed, Saraj Din, Baz Hussain, Mehraj Din, Anwar-ul-Haq, Mohd Nissar, Umer Bakesh, Mohd Mehboob, Mohd Bashir, Mohd Azam, Abdul Majid, Mohd Nazir, Mohd Mushtaq, Makhan Din, Jamal Din, Mohd Naseer, Mohd Din, Mohd Zuffer, Karam Noor and Zahien were closely related to him.
He submitted that one of the accused had borrowed Rs 6,40,000 from his brother Abdul Rehman for purchase of land at village Ari about one year ago which was to be returned on 31.12.2009. However, on April 25, 2010, all the accused attacked him and his brother with intention to commit their murder.
In this case, the Trial Court had awarded life imprisonment to nine accused persons, who challenged the judgment by filing criminal appeal.
After hearing Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi with Advocate Ravi Abrol for the appellants whereas Deputy AG Asheesh Singh Kotwal for the State, the DB modified the judgment passed by the Trial Court. “The conviction and sentence imposed on the Javed Ahmed for offences under Section 302 of the RPC and Section 4 read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act as also the conviction and sentence imposed on the Siraj Dingh for offence under Section 325 RPC is upheld”, the DB said.
“The appellants Mehraj Din, Anwar-ul-Haq, Saraj Din, Mohd Mehboob, Makhan Din, Baz Hussain, Umer Bakesh and Abdul Majid are acquitted of the charges for commission of offences under Section 302 of the RPC read with Section 34 of the RPC”, the DB added.
“So far as submission made on behalf of the appellants that whole trial is vitiated as neither any charge was framed against the appellants under Section 34 of the RPC nor they were tried for the same also does not deserve acceptance in view of specific provision contained in Section 535 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that no finding or sentence pronounced or passed shall be deemed to be invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed unless in the opinion of court of appeal or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby”, the DB said.
“It has not been demonstrated before us as to how the appellants were prejudiced on account of omission of charge under Section 34 of the RPC”, the DB added.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel