MY KOLKATA EDUGRAPH
ADVERTISEMENT
regular-article-logo Saturday, 05 October 2024

Two convicted in Dhanbad judge murder case

Special CBI court to announce quantum of punishment on August 6

Animesh Bisoee Jamshedpur Published 29.07.22, 02:28 AM
Justice Uttam Anand

Justice Uttam Anand File picture

A special CBI court on Thursday convicted of murder two persons arrested after Dhanbad additional district judge Uttam Anand was killed after being hit by

an autorickshaw during a morning jog exactly a year ago.

ADVERTISEMENT

Lakhan Verma, who was driving the three-wheeler, and Rahul Verma, his accomplice, were also found guilty of destruction of evidence. The court will announce the quantum of punishment on August 6, defence counsel Kumar Bimlendu said.

Judge Anand was murdered days after he had rejected the bail pleas of two gangsters.

Initially it was thought to be a hit-and-run incident but Anand’s family lodged an FIR for murder after the police showed them the CCTV footage.

Supreme Court Bar Association president Vikas Singh had petitioned a bench of Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, requesting it to take suo motu cognisance of the incident. Justice Ramana had spoken to the Jharkhand High Court chief justice, following which the court took suo motu cognisance and sought details from the police.

The Jharkhand government had subsequently handed over the investigation to the CBI, which re-registered the case and filed a chargesheet in October last year. The sessions court framed charges on February 2 this year, and after 35 hearings, completed the trial.

“Special CBI court judge Rajnikant Pathak has held the two accused guilty under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC. The court has fixed August 6 to decide on the quantum of punishment,” said defence counsel Bimlendu.

Section 302 pertains to murder, 201 deals with destruction of evidence, and 34 with “acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”.

The prosecution had said that the motive of the crime was to snatch the victim’s mobile phone, and that it was a premeditated act that warranted conviction under IPC Section 302. The defence had pleaded that it was not an “intentional hit” and that it attracted only the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

RELATED TOPICS

Follow us on:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT