STATE Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR
LAWS(J&K)-2006-3-15
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on March 07,2006

STATE Appellant
VERSUS
PARDEEP KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) RESPONDENTS arrayed as accused in a police challan, Under Section 304/109 RPC and 3/25 Arms Act, were discharged by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu vide order dated 9.5.2001.
(2.) STATE has questioned this order in Criminal Revision Petition No. 38/2001. The prosecution story as translated by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu reads thus: Accused Pardeep Kumar running a medical/chemist shop at Shopping Complex, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu. On 12.11.1999, when he was engaged in his shop with a customer respondent / accused No. 2 who happens to be a friend of Pardeep Kumar respondent/accused No. 1 was also present there; that at about 9.00 p.m Anil Kumar, Titoo alias Tara Chand, Hinto alias Deepak Dogra arrived there and started firing at Sanjay Kumar alias Bakra in order to do away with his life but Ravi Kumar who was present there at the shop of Pardeep Kumar as customer sustained bullet injuries. Accused Pardeep Kumar is alleged to have, returned fire from his licensed pistol. It is in the statement of the prosecution witnesses that Pardeep Kumar fired back at the instance of Sanjay Kumar alias Bakra due to which Anil Kumar was hit and due to the injuries sustained thereby died a few paces ahead of the place of occurrence. After going through the evidence recorded by investigating agency, during the currency of the investigation, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge discharged the accused holding the charge groundless.
(3.) SH . B.S Salathia, learned Addl. Advocate General, submits that although deceased Anil Kumar had fired at Sanjay Kumar alias bakra in order to do away with his life, yet this would not by itself provide any occasion to Pardeep Kumar to have returned fire from his licensed pistol, which according to Sh. Salathia and the prosecution story had been done at the instance of Sanjay Kumar alias Bakra. Learned Addl. Advocate General further submits that the right of private defence was not available to the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.