Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 22: 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu VS Bhou today awarded life imprisonment to four accused namely Ankush Pandoh alias Munna, S/O Bharat Bhushan, Aadil Shah, S/O Nazir Shah, Rahil Chandel, S/O Mohd. Rafiq Chandel and Rajesh Pandoh alias Raju S/O Krishan Lal who were facing trial in murder case.
According to the police case that on 02.05.2009, the Police of Police Station Udhampur, received an information from reliable source that on the said date at 11:00 A.M, inside the business establishment of Kamal Enterprises, situated at Chabutra Bazar, Udhampur, one person, Sanjay Jandial, son of Krishan Lal, resident of Sailan Talab, because of old enmity, was attacked and seriously injured by Ankush Pandoh alias Munna, son of Bharat Bhushan, resident of Lambi Galli, Udhampur, and others in order to murder the aforesaid Sanjay Jandial. Ankush Pandoh was accompanied by 2/3 more persons at the time of attack. All of them attacked Sanjay Jandial with toka etc. and fired upon Sanjay Jandial who sustained serious injuries owing to the aforesaid attack. While Sanjay Jandial was being shifted to the hospital at Udhampur, he succumbed to the injuries en-route hospital. On this information the Police of Police Station Udhampur, registered FIR Number 101 of 2009, on 02.05.2009, under Sections 302, 452 and 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code and under Sections 3/25, 4/25 of the Arms Act.
2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu VS Bhou after hearing Special Public Prosecutor RK Kotwal whereas Sr. Adv Sunil Sethi with Adv ML Gupta for the accused persons observed that herein is outcome of enmity over business rivalry between convict Rajesh Pandoh and deceased. A distinction should be made a dreaded and hardened criminal and ordinary criminal while sentencing the convict. It is not only the duty of the Court but social and legal obligations are clearly enjoined upon it to impose adequate punishment according to law while taking into consideration not only the crime, but also the criminal. Furthermore, deterrence and reformation are primarily social goals, which make deprivation of life and liberty reasonable as penal panacea. Retributive theory as had its days and is no longer valid. Sentence of death is only deterrent and preventive, but sentence of imprisonment for life is in addition to deterrence and preventive, also gives a chance to the criminal for reformation and of repentance while undergoing life imprisonment in the jail. Certainly, the nature of sentence of life is incarceration till death of the convict. Reliance is placed on 1982 Criminal Law Journal 600 Bombay High Court. By adopting the analogy as has been held in the aforesaid citation by their Lordships to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be safely said that the case does not fall in the category of rarest of the rare case. It is settled principle of law that imprisonment for life and fine is a rule and death penalty is an exception for commission of offence of murder punishable under section 302 RPC. With these observations Court awarded rigorous imprisonment for life for the commission of offence under section 302 RPC and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- to all the accused. JNF