2 acquitted in murder case

Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 9: Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Vinod Chatterji Koul has acquitted Nirmal Singh, son of Bharat Singh of Samyalpur and Vickey Thappa, son of Chaman Lal of Manyal, Brahamana in a murder case and issued notice to witnesses Diler Singh, Ram Ditta and Ranjit Kumar, who had deposed before the court as well as had given the statements under Section 164-A CrPC for perjury.
After hearing both the sides, the court observed, “in the absence of creditworthy direct evidence, the other formal evidence is of no consequence for the prosecution”.
Before parting with the judgment, court observed, “the conduct of the 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 needs to be seen”.
“The witnesses have taken different stands in their evidences regarding the allegation leveled against the accused as per the prosecution story. They have denied the genuineness and correctness of their statement made under Section 164-A CrPC”, the court said, adding “the statement of these witnesses reveals that they had deliberately resiled from their earlier statement  made before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164-A CrPC”.
Court further observed, “now-a-days there is large public anger and hue and cry is being raised that the courts are not convicting the accused persons. However, no person accused of murder can be convicted if the witnesses do not support the prosecution case or give the quality evidence before the court”, adding “it should not be ignored that the court has to confine itself to the ambit of law and the conditions of file as well as the testimony of the witness and the courts are not to be swayed by emotions and sentiments”.
“The act of witnesses definitely warrants the action to be taken under Section 479B CrPC as such office is directed to issue notice to the witnesses in terms of Section 479-B CrPC directing them to show cause as to why proceedings be not initiated against them”, the court said.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here