Court said poetic justice needs to be done in Kathua case, rejected defence pleas on defective probe

The special court, hearing the rape and murder case of an8-year-old nomadic girl in Kathua in Jammu region, has termed the crime”devilish and monstrous” committed in most “shameful, inhumaneand barbaric manner” for which “poetic justice” needs to be doneto its perpetrators.

District and sessions judge of Pathankot, which was hearingthe matter on the direction of the Supreme Court, convicted six people on June10 in the case which included Sanji Ram, dismissed policeman Deepak Khajuriaand Parvesh Kumar, who have been sentenced to life in jail.

   

“Heaven and hell are no geographical locations, ourthoughts, actions and character create the situation of heaven or hell forus,” judge Dr Tejwinder Singh wrote in the beginning of his 432-pagejudgment, a copy of which is with PTI.

He said it was needless to say the commission of this”devilish and monstrous crime has sent shockwaves across the society andthe actual guilty needs to be brought under the sword of justice.”

He also observed the crime committed against the minor is”shameful, inhumane and barbaric” but said the evidence brought onrecord has to be tested on a “touchstone in order to find out the realculprits, so that no innocent person is crushed under the wheels in an unjustmanner.”

After hearing prosecution lawyers, comprising S S Basra, J KChopra, Harminder Singh and Bhupinder Singh, as also a battery of 57 defencelawyers, the judge said, “There is nothing on record which could show thatthere is a false implication (as contended by defence lawyers) of accusedpersons in this case”.

The court listed 11 police cases which showed strainedrelations between the ‘Bakarwal’ (nomads) community and the local residents andtook on record other statements which supported and proved the fact that therewas a communal tension in the area where the crime was committed on January 10last year.

“The Bakarwal community was apparently not accepted bythe local residents of that area, which led to strained relations between thetwo and as such there was a strong motive behind the occurrence.

“The defence has failed to rebut this motive whichapparently was behind the occurrence. As such this court is of the conclusionthat there was a strong motive behind this occurrence,” the judge said.

Commenting on the plea by the defence claiming theinvestigation as defective, the judge said the court is of the considered viewthat the documents are official documents on record which have been “dulyproved by the officials of different departments” on the basis of recordmaintained with them.

“….even otherwise this is a serious criminal trialand merely on some hyper technical objections raised by legal experts, nobenefit can be given to the accused persons as this trial has to be adjudicatedon the basis of detailed and consolidated evidence led by the prosecution inthis case,” the judgment said.

The judge, after relying on several Supreme Court judgments,said, “If at all, at any point of time, there was a minor lapse in theinvestigation, the benefit of the doubt cannot be given to the accused in thepresent trial which is very serious in nature.”

Deciding on the plea raised by the defence that there was nodirect evidence against any accused, the judge ruled that the court was of theopinion that in the present case the circumstances from which an inference ofguilt is sought to be drawn have been cogently and firmly established.

“The circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution isdefinite which unerringly point out towards the guilt of the accused. Thecircumstances taken cumulatively from a chain so complete that there is noescape from the conclusion that within all human probability that the crime wascommitted by the accused and none else.

“The circumstantial evidence is complete in itself andis incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis that the of guilt of theaccused and such evidence is consistent with the guilt of the accused,”the judge said, adding that the circumstantial evidence led by prosecution hasto be given “due weightage in the case”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

four × five =