Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 148 (JK)

Naresh Singh v. State

2009-04-02

SUNIL HALI

body2009
1. The petitioner alongwith six other accused persons is facing trail before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jammu under sections 302, 109, 212, 382 RPC , 3/25 Arms Act. The accused stands charged by the court below vide its order dated 10-9-2007. This order has been questioned by the petitioner under section 561A Cr.PC in this court. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The prosecution case is that on account of gang rivalry between two groups operating in Jammu one headed by Accused-1, hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the head of their rival gang deceased Sanjay Kumar alias Bakra. The story further reveals that on 25-11-2006, accused Rajesh Dogra (A-l) and Vishal Singh (A-2) shot dead the deceased with their guns in the clinic of Dr. Rattan Kudyar at Trikuta Nagar, Jammu. The killing was preceded by a conspiracy hatched between the accused persons in which role in executing the killing were assigned to the accused persons. The role assigned to the present petitioner, Naresh Singh (A-3) is that he gave shelter to the accused persons after they committed the crime at Jammu. The accused persons stayed with the petitioner at Samba and on the morning on 26-9-2005, he escorted them upto Lakhanpur for their safe passage out side the State. It has also come on record that one accused person had changed his jacket, which was subsequently recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The gun was also recovered from the cow shed hidden in grass owned by the accused (A-3). The Investigating Officer in his report under section 173 has stated that the present petitioner had provided shelter to the accused (A-l and A-2) and has also facilitated their escape from the State. 4. The case set out by the petitioner is that he is guilty of only providing shelter and cannot be said to be involved in the said conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. His role starts only after the act was committed and there is no material on the basis of which the accused can be said to be a part of the conspiracy. On the other hand, Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel for the respondents states that it is not the stage to judge, as to whether the accused can be convicted but there is a grave suspicion that the accused is a part of the conspiracy. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel for the respondents states that it is not the stage to judge, as to whether the accused can be convicted but there is a grave suspicion that the accused is a part of the conspiracy. 5. Analysing the contentions of the parties, the following things emerge from the facts: a) That the elimination of the deceased was due to inter gang rivalry. His elimination was achieved after proper planning was worked out by the accused persons. b) That after having committed the offence, the accused (A-l and A-2) directly went to the house of the petitioner to seek shelter. c) That the petitioner has not only provided shelter to the accused but also facilitated their escape from the State. 6. To eliminate the exclusion of petitioners role at this stage after looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, whether his discharge under section 302 RPC would be proper or not at this stage. 7. The court at the stage of framing of charge is not to weigh the evidence but would only see that prima facie case is made out or not. Whether the case of probable conviction is made out or not on the basis of material found during the investigation, would be its sole concern. It cannot delve deep into the matter for the purpose of appreciation of evidence. Material which has come on record does not only speak of petitioners providing shelter but his help to conceal the revolver used in crime by accused A-l and A-2 in the cow shed and also in facilitating their escape from the State. This circumstance, in my opinion, would be sufficient to put the accused on trial under section 302. At the time of framing of charge, probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into. It is not the case based purely on suspicion but on evidence, which prima facie links the accused to the alleged crime. As already stated hereinabove, the manner in which the act was executed, cannot delink the involvement of the petitioner from the said conspiracy. 8. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 08-5-2009.