Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, November 17
In a major embarrassment for the Haryana police, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has frowned upon the inability of an investigating officer to arrest "co-participants" in a murder case for a "prolonged duration of 15 years". A Division Bench of the High Court also directed the superintendent of the police district concerned to forthwith ensure expeditious arrest of the two and produce them before the Court concerned.
Ensure arrest
The Superintendent of the Police district concerned is directed to forthwith ensure the expeditious arrest of the co-accused and thereafter cause their production in the court concerned. Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur amp; Justice Kuldeep Tiwari
In their 14-page verdict, the Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari asserted that the "co-participants" were not arrested through the convict in his disclosure statement had named them. The matter was brought to the Bench's notice after the accused-convict challenged Faridabad Additional Sessions Judge's verdict passed in February 2013, whereby he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 of the IPC. He was also sentenced to three years imprisonment for disappearance of evidence of the offence committed under Section 201 of the IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
An FIR in the matter was registered after an unidentified body with neck slit was found in the fields. Accused Shyam Lal was arrested, who made a disclosure statement admitting his involvement, along with his friends Kundan and Vijay, in the commission of the murder. Shyam Lal also got the head of victim Ranjeet recovered. Accused Vijay and Kundan could, however, not be arrested
Taking up the appeal, the Bench asserted the confession of guilt would be a bald and a "simpliciter" confession and would be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, if recoveries were not made consequent therewith. But if recoveries were validly made consequently, the confession of guilt by the convict would become admissible and relevant.
The Bench added the disclosure statement with signature and consequent recoveries did hold "immense evidentiary vigor", unless the convict was able to ably deny his signatures and also prove the denial. The apposite recoveries, too, would hold evidentiary vigor and force, unless the defence adduced cogent evidence suggestive of the fact that the recoveries were planted by the investigating officer concerned.
The Bench added that the impugned verdict of conviction and the order of sentence recorded by the trial Judge concerned did not suffer from "any gross perversity, absurdity of any gross mis-appreciation and, non-appreciation of the evidence on record".
As a consequence, the appeal being without merit was dismissed. The Bench also made it clear that trial Judge concerned would ensure that the sentences imposed upon the accused were forthwith executed by drawing committal warrants if he was on bail.
from The Tribune https://ift.tt/yNj4ECc
No comments:
Post a Comment