9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mi Devi in her complaint stated that her younger brother Harvinder @ Binder was residing with her for the past 14 years and running the shop of mobile, CD and videogames in F-66 and A-88, Katwaria Sarai. The family of Harvinder was living in Barthal where he used to visit once a week. On the date of incident at about 11:30 PM like daily routine, she brought meal for her brother at the shop and alter taking the meal both of them were talking when two boys at around 12:00 O'Clock came inside the shop, one of them icling on the other side of counter asked her brother whether he knew who he was. On saying this both of them took out their pistols and pointed towards Harvinder, who while standing up from the chair, tried to snatch the pistol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been recorded belatedly and all that he has said is that he heard from his balcony the petitioner talking to three four people and saying Binder ko dekh lenge . Aman Sharma was present at the place of incident and had taken the deceased to the hospital yet the statement was recorded only on 18th September, 2010, that is, four days before the filing of the first charge sheet. Even taking the statement of Aman Sharma on its face value it cannot be said that the Petitioner entered into conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased. It is highly unnatural that a conspiracy would be hatched in the open where the public at large can hear the conspirators. The Petitioner relies upon the decisions in Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d having committed this murder besides the other offences. He disclosed that he along with Sudhir, Nitin, Satpal and Vikas went to the shop of Harvinder and on pointing of Nitin and Vikas he and Sudhir entered into the shop and fired at Harvinder @ Binder. Thereafter Nitin and Vikas were arrested who disclosed about the involvement of Mukesh and the Petitioner, that is, Nitin's father. The role attributed to the Petitioner in the disclosure statement of the co-accused persons is that after, the murder of Honey, the Petitioner and his family being the uncle of deceased Honey came to know that Binder distributed sweets and celebrated and stated that this was to happen. Thereafter they met Ashok Rathi, who hired Sudhir @ Sidhu and Anil. Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aid of Section 34 and 149 IPC. The evidence against the Petitioner at the moment is disclosure statement of the co-accused stating that Sudhir met the Petitioner after the incident and that he gave money to Ashok Rathi. As regards Sudhir meeting the Petitioner, learned APP has accepted the fact that Sudhir is the tenant in one of the rooms of the Petitioner's premises. As regards Ashok Rathi, no charge sheet has been filed against him as there was no sufficient evidence available against him to show that he took money for hiring the assassins. As noted above, the statement of Aman Sharma is that just after Honey's death he heard three-four persons standing and wondering whether there was hand of Binder in the murder of Honey or no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
