Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Feb 11: The High Court held that there is no ground for prosecution to seek custody of absconding accused after filing of challan and acquittal of co-accused in the case.
Justice Sanjay Parihar said that mere surrender of an absconding accused after filing of challan does not create a right in favour of the prosecution to seek his or her custody when the prosecution rests on the very same evidence on which co-accused have already been acquitted.
The court dismissed the criminal revision filed by the prosecution state against the verdict of trial court whereby seeking of police custody by the prosecution has been turned down.
The prosecution was seeking custody in a case whereby serious offences including murder, attempt to murder, rioting and offences under the Arms Act were made in FIR registered in Police Station Trikuta Nagar, Jammu against the accused persons – Dhanwanter Singh and others.
The trial against the available accused culminated in a judgment of acquittal which was later challenged by the State in an acquittal appeal before the High Court.
Subsequently, the absconding accused surrendered before the trial court and at that stage, the prosecution moved an application seeking police remand of the surrendered accused for the purpose of further investigation and filing of a supplementary challan, contending that their custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain their specific role in the crime. The Sessions Court, however, declined the request leading the State to file the present criminal revision.
The court noted that the criminal revision was filed in March 2014 but remained pending for more than a decade without any urgency being shown by the State, despite repeated non-service of the respondents.
The Court recorded that after surrender, the respondents were formally charged, pleaded not guilty and sought adoption of the evidence already recorded during the earlier trial. On the same evidence, the co-accused had already been acquitted.
“…Once the respondents stood acquitted, the order refusing police remand had merged with the final judgment of acquittal, rendering the criminal revision infructuous. In view of the subsequent acquittal of the respondents, the impugned order got merged into the final judgment, rendering the revision infructuous,” the Court observed.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
