Delhi

93-year-old man moves SC against life sentence in a 40 year old murder case

 The plea said medical reports of the petitioner showed blockage in his brain

 

 The Hush Post: A 93-year-old man moved Supreme Court challenging the life sentence awarded to him in a 40-year-old murder case.
The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a vacation bench of justices U U Lalit and Deepak Gupta. “You mention this matter before the next vacation bench (which would sit from June 18),” the bench told the counsel appearing for petitioner Rohtas, it was reported.

Advocates Yadunandan Bansal and Amit Kumar, have filed the appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s judgement, said that the petitioner was suffering from ailments due to which he was unable to move his right portion of body, it was reported.

The plea said that medical reports of the petitioner have showed that there was blockage in his brain due to which he could go into coma or paralysis in entire body.

The high court, in its February 12 verdict, had dismissed the appeal filed by Rohtas and two others who were convicted and awarded life term by a trial court in 1983.

According to the police, the incident took place in Bagpat district of Uttar Pradesh on September 29, 1978 when two parties had a scuffle over harvesting crop from a piece of land in which some persons were injured. The police had claimed that the incident had occurred due to land dispute between the parties and Rohtas along with others had assaulted the members of opposite party.

One person died due to the injuries sustained in the incident. These accused had denied the allegations levelled against them and had told the High Court that one of them had lodged a complaint with the police about the incident.

They had pleaded ‘right to self-defence’ before the high court and had contended that one of them had also sustained serious injuries during the scuffle.

However, the High Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the accused persons. In the appeal filed before the top court, the petitioner has alleged that the High Court has goofed up in not considering several facts in the case, including that one of the accused was also grievously injured in the incident.

Leave a Reply