The Delhi high court today shall be pronouncing its judgment on the appeal filed by former senior police officer RK Sharma and three others, serving life sentence, against their conviction for murdering journalist Shivani Bhatnagar.
A Division Bench of Justice BD Ahmed and Justice Manmohan Singh had reserved its judgment on December 21st last year after hearing arguments from the counsel of the defence as well as the prosecution. Shivani, a journalist with the Indian Express, was murdered in her Navkunj Apartments flat at IP Extension in East Delhi on January 2, 1999.
Sharma's counsel argued there were several missing links, including the call record, in the chain of circumstances and the record was tampered with to implicate him.The lawyer sought the acquittal ofhis client on the ground of lacunae in the transcript of the mobile phone calls between his client and other accomplices to substantiate his allegation that the police had fabricated the call records.
Standing Counsel (Criminal) Pawan Sharma countered the defence contention that the accused was posted in the prime minister's office and if any call record was tampered with at all, it was done by Sharma. He also argued the convict was holding a high position and had influenced the witnesses, as a result which 43 prosecution witnesses turned hostile in the case.
The prosecution had also alleged in the trial court that Sharma had provided certain classified documents to Shivani that led to her murder by the former as the journalist wanted to make the documents public. A trial court had convicted the four accused Sharma, Sri Bhagwan, Pradeep Sharma and Satya Prakash to life imprisonment in March 2008.
A Division Bench of Justice BD Ahmed and Justice Manmohan Singh had reserved its judgment on December 21st last year after hearing arguments from the counsel of the defence as well as the prosecution. Shivani, a journalist with the Indian Express, was murdered in her Navkunj Apartments flat at IP Extension in East Delhi on January 2, 1999.
Sharma's counsel argued there were several missing links, including the call record, in the chain of circumstances and the record was tampered with to implicate him.The lawyer sought the acquittal ofhis client on the ground of lacunae in the transcript of the mobile phone calls between his client and other accomplices to substantiate his allegation that the police had fabricated the call records.
Standing Counsel (Criminal) Pawan Sharma countered the defence contention that the accused was posted in the prime minister's office and if any call record was tampered with at all, it was done by Sharma. He also argued the convict was holding a high position and had influenced the witnesses, as a result which 43 prosecution witnesses turned hostile in the case.
The prosecution had also alleged in the trial court that Sharma had provided certain classified documents to Shivani that led to her murder by the former as the journalist wanted to make the documents public. A trial court had convicted the four accused Sharma, Sri Bhagwan, Pradeep Sharma and Satya Prakash to life imprisonment in March 2008.
How can only a contract killer be punished, and others let off? Strange. Had they let him off to then if would have been one logical decision. Now, I can't make out how such decisions are arrived at.
ReplyDeleteThe question is, who hired him? Will the court order prosecution to submit any (additional) evidence to look into what was lacking, instead of saying benefit of doubt and release these guys?
What is the meaning of law points in the matter are kept open
ReplyDelete