Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Apr 1: High Court while reprimanding the trial court in awarding the accused death sentence and life imprisonment for commission of offences of murder and rape of a girl without conducting the proper inquiry with regard to age of the accused and directed to determine of age of the petitioner-accused as on date of occurrence of the commission of offence within a period of two months.
Petitioner-Mohammad Rashid has challenged order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions, Judge, Jammu whereby the trial Court has, after conducting inquiry with regard to the plea of juvenility of the petitioner, submitted its report, holding that date of birth of the petitioner is proved to be 12.01.1987 and that on date of the occurrence, i.e. on 28.08.2005, he was more than 18 years of age and as such, was not a juvenile.
A charge-sheet was laid by the police of Police Station, Pacca Danga, Jammu against the petitioner-Rashid in pursuance of the investigation conducted by the police in respect of FIR No. 144 of 2005 and as per the case of prosecution, petitioner is alleged to have kidnapped minor daughter of one Abdul Rehman from his rented accommodation at Rani Talab, Jammu and thereafter, subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse and murder.
The occurrence is alleged to have been taken place on 28.08.2005 and the petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 363, 376 & 302 RPC and was, accordingly, tried by the trial Court for commission of the aforesaid offences, whereupon he was convicted for commission of the aforementioned offences in terms of the judgment dated 13.03.2014 passed by the trial court by awarding death sentence for offence of rape, he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000 and in proof of offence under Section 363 RPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs. 2,000.
Division Bench of Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Sanjay Dhar said that after collecting all the material, the Trial Court would have been in a better position to render its finding as regards the age of the petitioner as on date of commission of the alleged offence but unfortunately it did not take trouble to undertake this exercise and instead recorded its findings on the basis of incomplete material.
The Trial Court, DB added, besides doing a sketchy job as regards the inquiry with regard to the accused, has also rendered certain findings and observations which are perverse to say the least as the Trial Court has observed that a person, who does not know the name of his wife, is not expected to remember the date of birth of his child and on this basis, he has discarded the statement of the father of the petitioner.
“We are afraid the observation of the Trial Court in this regard is perverse and contrary to the record. A perusal of the statement of father of the petitioner, reveals that he has clearly stated that the name of his wife as Jana. It appears that on account of lack of knowledge of Urdu language, the trial Judge has wrongly translated the Urdu version of the statement thereby landing himself into a gross error”, DB said.
All the observations, DB added, made by the Trial Court are contrary to record and, therefore, the conclusions drawn by the Trial Court on the basis of the observations is definitely not in accordance with law, and as such, not sustainable.
While setting aside the findings of the Trial Court made in the impugned inquiry report, the matter has been remand the case back to the Trial Court with the direction to ascertain whether the certificate produced by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kokernag, depicting the age of the petitioner as 12.01.1987 does actually pertain to the petitioner or to any other person keeping in view the fact that there is discrepancy in the name and particulars of the child mentioned in the said certificate and the name and particulars of the petitioner, as given in the challan.
Follow our WhatsApp channel