This has happened in the Geetanjali Murder Case where the father and brother of the girl turned hostile in the case on whose request the case was transferred for CBI Investigation and now they have backtracked from their statements.
Also Read-CASE TRANSFER TO CBI BY HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH
Former Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Ravneet Garg is accused of killing his wife Geetanjali and the trial is yet underway at the CBI court in Panchkula.In a major twist to the Geetanjali murder case, the victim’s brother has now turned hostile. Pradeep Aggarwal told the court on Wednesday that the accused hadn’t subjected his sister to cruelty or harassed her for dowry.In a fresh turn of events in the Geetanjali murder case, the Punjab and Haryana high court has directed the Panchkula Special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court to initiate recovery proceedings for costs incurred by the Haryana police and the CBI to probe the case against her father and brother, for turning hostile.
Also Read- Rejection of Closure Report by CBI Court in Criminal Cases
Geetanjali, wife of then Gurugram chief judicial magistrate Ravneet Garg, was found dead in a park at police lines in Gurugram on July 17, 2013. A licenced revolver belonging to the judge was found lying near her. She had sustained four bullet injuries. After the incident, the Aggarwal family had alleged that she was being harassed for dowry, and on their plea, the state transferred the murder probe to the CBI.The high court order came on the bail plea filed by Garg, who was arrested in September 2016 and has since been suspended. He was granted bail on July 27.Granting him bail, Justice Chaudhari remarked how can the duo be allowed to chuckle at the prosecuting agency and walk away easily without reimbursing costs and paying any compensation when they had only lodged the complaint and forced the state and the CBI to spend money and energy on the case. The father and son had made a hue and cry about the state’s probe following which CBI was roped in.In December 2016, the CBI filed its chargesheet in the case, wherein they found Ravneet and his parents guilty of causing death for dowry.“This trend (of witnesses turning hostile) has started setting and must be nipped in the bud,” Justice Chaudhari said, adding that the court is expected to act according to law as the interest of the state and society demands.In July, Geetanjali’s brother Pardeep had told the trial court that Ravneet did not maltreat his sister. He had even backtracked on the initial complaint of dowry demand.They gave specific details before police but now they have done a somersault, justice Chaudhari said.The CBI court has been asked to assess expenses incurred before completion of trial and even attach the duo’s properties for recovery if it feels so.
Section 362 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Court not to after judgement. Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code
- Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
(Secondly) —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
(Thirdly) —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
(Fourthly) —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Also Read- High Court orders CBI probe in Arrest Case of Doctor
The high court order came on the bail plea filed by Garg, who was arrested in September 2016 and has since been suspended. He was granted bail on July 27.Granting him bail, Justice Chaudhari remarked how can the duo be allowed to chuckle at the prosecuting agency and walk away easily without reimbursing costs and paying any compensation when they had only lodged the complaint and forced the state and the CBI to spend money and energy on the case. The father and son had made a hue and cry about the state’s probe following which CBI was roped in.Initially, HC had asked the duo to explain how a final order (On recovery of costs) could be modified in view of section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which disallowed altering or reviewing of judgment or a final order on merits.“Their argument was that order was passed without affording a hearing to them, which is against the principal of natural justice. Also no formal inquiry was conducted, as mandated in law, whether evidence produced by them was false,” their lawyer, senior advocate Bipan Ghai had argued. Now the court has taken note of the argument that the HC had passed the order without hearing Om Prakash and Pradeep, which, according to them, “adversely affect their right/status”. The hearing will resume on January 15, when CBI will start its argument on why the order can’t be modified.
Also Read- INTERIM PROTECTION FROM ARREST IN THE VVIPs CHOPPER SCAM
For case specific advice please contact Punjab Haryana High Court Lawyers Advocate dealing in criminal matters who file petitions for CBI Investigation of your case,
More on 99888-17966.