Court awards 10 years in homicide case
JKUT (Jammu), September-30-2021-( JNF):- Additional Session Judge Doda Mehmood Ahmad Choudhary Convicted accused namely Gul Mohammad Khan S/o Ahad Khan R/O Chappnari, Doda for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000/- in FIR No : 50/2012 U/S 302,201 RPC P/S Doda.
As per the Prosecution story, the accused Gul Mohd S/O Ahad Khan R/O Chappnari, Tehsil-Doda has entered into wedlock with Mst. Rubina Begum about 4 years ago. Out of that wedlock two girl child was born out, due to the birth of two girls children the accused offended and started quarreling with the wife Rubina Begum. His wife Rubina Begum left the house of the accused Gul Mohd and went to the house of her parents many times. Her parents consoled her and sent back to the house of Gul Mohd, with this respect a Biradari Panchayat was also convened in which the accused has furnished an affidavit that he will remain cordial with his wife and will treat her fairly, despite best efforts by the Biradari the relation between husband and wife become strained and with the result, the accused has search of opportunity to get rid of his wife and the girls children. On 24-03-2012 the accused along with Rubina Begum and two minor girls children in the Maruti Van no. JK06-2352 were going towards Jammu and asked his wife that we will go to Jammu at the house of her sister. At about 8 am in the morning when they reached at Reggy Nallah the accused parked his vehicle at a place, where it is likely that the vehicle fell down and there is no chance of survival of any passenger. The accused with the intention to kill the three persons has stopped his vehicle and he moved out of vehicle and pushed the vehicle into the river Chenab and kill all the three persons. The accused has pushed the vehicle on a spot, where vehicle has not been traced. On the basis of the investigation, the offences U/Ss 302/201 have been made out against the accused and the offence U/S 302/201 RPC have been added in the offences.
Court recorded the statement of 20 witnesses including the Doctor and Investigating Officer. However, as per evidence and the circumstances appearing there-in what is proved behind any doubt is that the accused acting negligently and carelessly has parked the vehicle at a place which was not safe for parking, surely with the knowledge that it could cause an accident and result in the death of the wife and children.
The act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death committed offence punishable U/S 304 RPC.
However, from the careful reading of the evidence and the circumstance appearing therein what is true behind any doubt is that the accused has parked the vehicle at a place which was not safe for parking, surely with the knowledge that it could fall the result is the death of the passengers. Therefore, this Court in its consider opinion hold the accused guilty of offence punishable U/S 304 RPC.
The Court proceed to decide pivotal question of intention with care and caution as that will decide whether the case falls U/S 304-I or 304-II RPC.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, as per the PW’s cited by the prosecution. The family members as well as the close relatives failed to establish that there is pre-mediated mind or intention of the accused to kill the deceased wife and children of the accused and the all other independent witnesses also fails to prove that the accused has any pre-mediated mind to kill the deceased and his children. The accused, as such, in my considered opinion, has not any pre-mediated mind or intention to push the vehicle into the river, but he has parked the vehicle in such a place, where there is an every possibility that, if the vehicle fell down, there is every possibility that the wife and children’s may be killed and accused has not taken any precaution to park the vehicle in a place, which is safe the passengers in the vehicle will be saved. So, there is no intention of the accused to kill the deceased, but the accused has having sufficient knowledge that if, the vehicle will fell down and there is no chance of survival of passengers. Therefore, the case would fall U/S 304-II and not U/S 304-I RPC.
On the basis of what has been discussed here-in above, this Court is in its consider opinion hold the accused guilty for the commission of offence punishable U/S 304-II RPC.
After hearing both the sides on the sentence of Quantum ,the Court held that the accused to go 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- in offence 304 Part-2.
Rajesh Gill Additional Public Prosecutor contested the case on behalf of state whereas Advocate Imtiaz Ahmad Mir appreared on behalf of the Accused.JNF