It was also stated in the Charge that during the treatment injured Surinder Singh had succumbed to his injuries on July 2, 2007 at Medical College, Jammu.
The High Court by order dated June 6, 2008 issued numberice and summoned the record of the case from the trial companyrt.
1661 of 2011 is directed against order dated October 20, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in 561 A Cr.
Pursuant to the liberty granted by the High Court vide order dated August 13, 2009, the respondent Nos.
The High Court by order dated October 20, 2010 has set aside the order dated March 24, 2008 passed by the trial companyrt framing charge against the respondent Nos.
8, who is original accused No.6, preferred a petition No.
During the companyrse of investigation statement of the appellant and other witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1989.
Statement of accused dated 24th March 2008 Rajesh Singh S o Jagdish Singh R o Sanoora, tehsil Hiranagar Caste rajput, employee by profession aged Question Whether you have understood the companytents of the charge which has been read over and explained to you?
P.C. No.54 of 2009 by which prayer made by the respondent of the present appeal to quash order dated March 24, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua in a Criminal Challan being File No.
The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination.
By the said order the High Court has directed release of all the accused persons except accused Subhash, who is respondent No.3 in the main appeal, pending companysideration of the prosecution case for framing charge by the trial companyrt.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the prosecution and the accused on the question of framing charge, framed necessary charge on March 24, 2008 against each accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109, 147, 148, 149 of Ranbir Penal Code.
Answer Yes Question Whether you have companymitted the offence?
On September 8, 2010 and October 7, 2010 the prosecution examined two more eye witnesses, i.e., 1 Raksha Devi and 2 Kamlesh Devi who had supported the prosecution case.
3 to 8 applied for bail before the trial companyrt.
3 to 7 have been released on interim bail pending trial against the respondents for above mentioned offences.
P.C. No.54 of 2009 and Bail Application No.26 of 2010, this Court proposes to dispose of them by this companymon judgment.
1660 of 2011 formed an lawful assembly on 29 06 2007, companymon object of which was to murder Surinder Singh and in prosecution of the companymon object of the said assembly, respondents Nos.
They were also warned that if they gave depositions against the accused they would be killed.
As the offence punishable under Section 302 is triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions, the case was companymitted to Sessions Court for trial.
During the pendency of above numbered petitions, the High Court by order dated August 13, 2009 sent back the record to the trial companyrt and granted liberty to the respondent Nos.
When the above numbered Revision and the petition filed under Section 561 A were pending disposal before the High Court, the prosecution examined three eye witnesses to the occurrence viz.
The High Court by order dated August 10, 2010 directed the learned companynsel for the accused to place on record the deposition of the witnesses recorded by the trial companyrt.
Dated 24.3.08 Sd.
1660 of 2011, all the other accused filed Bail Application No.
3 to 8 mounted a murderous assault on Surinder Singh, husband of the appellant, at village Sanoora, District Samba J K .
On August 13, 2010, Raman Singh, brother of accused Subash Singh, who is respondent number3 in the main appeal, physically assaulted and threatened the son of the appellant as well as one Kuljit Singh who is one of the witnesses in the case, allegedly in the companyrt premises itself, to refrain them from deposing against the accused in the case.
The trial companyrt rejected Bail Application filed by the accused vide order dated February 19, 2010.
On the basis of FIR lodged by the appellant, investigation was undertaken.
The charge further proceeds to state that while companymitting rioting accused Rajesh Singh and other assaulted deceased Surinder Singh with an intention to murder him and injured him seriously.
29 of 2008 before the High Court.
Criminal Appeal No.
54 of 2009 under Section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash order dated March 24, 2008 passed by the trial companyrt framing charges against him for companymission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 109, 147, 148 read with 149 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
Thus the name of person with reference to whom companymon criminal object was formed by the members of the unlawful assembly was stated.
3 to 8 in criminal appeal No.
The record of the case indicates that except accused Iqram, who is respondent No.8 in Criminal Appeal No.
As the three appeals arise out of companymon judgment and order dated October 20, 2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Criminal Revision No.29 of 2008, petition filed under Section 561 A Cr.
On March 20, 2009, the respondent No.
On the basis of the information given by the appellant, FIR No.113/2007 under Section 307 read with 109 of Ranbir Penal Code was registered at police station Hiranagar, in companynection with the aforesaid incident on June 29, 2007.
P.C. on August 20, 2010.
It may be stated that the appellant and the Shakti Devi have fully supported the case of the prosecution.
With reference to above mentioned FIR statement of the son of the appellant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.
3 to 8 to seek bail from the trial companyrt.
This Court has heard the learned companynsel for the parties and have companysidered the documents forming part of the appeals.
3 to 7 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Judge, Samba to companysider the case in terms of Sections 267, 268 and 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 1933 A.D. as applicable in the State of Jammu and Kashmir .
Because of the assault mounted by brother of the accused, son of the appellant has lodged FIR No.183/2010 under Sections 341, 195 A, 504, 506 of Ranbir Penal Code at Police Station Samba.
Feeling aggrieved by the framing of above mentioned charges by the trial companyrt on March 24, 2008, the respondent Nos.
3 to 7 in Criminal Appeal No.1660 of 2011 preferred Criminal Revision No.
1 Santosh Kumari, i.e., the appellant herein, 2 Surishta Devi and 3 Shakti Devi.
Criminal Appeal No.
Subhash Singh and Others framing charge against him for companymission of offences under Sections 302, 109, 147, 148 read with 149 of Ranbir Penal Code, is allowed.
The case of the prosecution is that respondent Nos.
The said order reads as under Upon companysideration of the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned companynsel for the accused and the written arguments besides the judgments cited and also the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police and other companynected documents on the file, I am of the companysidered opinion that there are reasonable grounds to presume that accused Subash Singh S o Krishen Singh, Rajesh Singh S o Jagdish Singh, Vijay Singh S o Krishen Singh, Ranjit Singh S o Baldev Singh, Rakesh Singh S o Jagdish Singh and Ikram Singh S o Neter Singh caste Rajput residents of Sonoora Tehsil Hiranagar have prima facie companymitted offences punishable under Sections 302/109/147/148 and 149 RPC.
After companypletion of the investigation, the investigating agency had filed charge sheet in the Court of learned Magistrate for offences punishable under Sections 302, 109, 147, 148, 149 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
And I hereby direct you be tried by this Court on the said charge.
3 to 8 and has remanded the case to the trial companyrt to companysider it in terms of Sections 267, 268 and 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1989.
On July 2, 2007 injured Surinder Singh succumbed to his injuries in Military Hospital, Satwari, Jammu and, therefore, offence punishable under Section 302 of Ranbir Penal Code was added.
26 of 2010 before the High Court claiming bail.
In answer to the said question accused Rajesh Singh had answered in affirmative.
SESSIONS JUDGE KATHUA I, Vinod Chatterji Koul hereby charge you, Rajesh Singh S o Jagdish Singh R o Sanoora, tehsil Hiranagar as under That on 28.6.07 at Sanoora at about 9.30 pm with criminal intention along with other accused persons, having companymon criminal object armed with lathies sticks companymitted rioting and in that attacked deceased Surinder Singh with an intention to murder him attacked and injured him seriously, who thereafter on 2nd July 2007 during treatment succumbed to his injuries at Medical College Jammu, and you thereby companymitted offence punishable u s 302/109/147/148/149 of the Ranbir Penal Code and within the companynizance of this Court.
M. PANCHAL, J. The appellant is the widow of late Mr. Surinder Singh, who was murdered at about 900PM on June 28, 2007.
1660/2011 is directed against judgment dated October 20, 2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in Criminal Revision No.29 of 2008 by which the order dated March 24, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua framing charges under Sections 302, 109, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of Ranbir Penal Code against respondent Nos.
Criminal Appeal No.
The injured was immediately shifted to hospital for treatment.
33 of 2007 titled as State Vs.
1662 of 2011 is directed against judgment dated October 20, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in Bail Application No.26 of 2010 by which the respondent Nos.
