Delhi Court Convicts Juvenile for 2017 Jail Murder, Rejects Defence Claims
A Delhi court has delivered a significant verdict, convicting a juvenile for the 2017 murder of an undertrial prisoner in Jhajjar jail. The court firmly rejected the defence's claim that the accused was wrongly apprehended, marking a decisive moment in this long-pending case.
Court's Observations on the Murder
Additional sessions judge Amit Sehrawat, presiding over the case, made critical observations regarding the nature of the crime. The judge noted that the gunshot was fired from "a very close range", leaving "no doubt" about the juvenile's intention to kill. The court explicitly stated that the act "squarely amounted to murder" under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, underscoring the gravity of the offense.
Prosecution's Case and Evidence
The prosecution, represented by additional public prosecutor Aaditya Kumar, presented a detailed account of the incident. According to the prosecution, Rajesh, the victim who was later killed, was produced before the Rohini court on the day of the incident under the custody of Jhajjar jail staff. He was facing trial in a separate case at the time.
Around 11 am, outside the court complex, the juvenile shot Rajesh. The victim was rushed to Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, where he was declared brought dead. The court's findings revealed that the evidence on record established the juvenile had acted in conspiracy with others, namely Satish and Raj Kumar, to eliminate Rajesh, who was identified as a member of a rival gang.
During the investigation, key evidence was uncovered:
- A spherical lead slug was found at the spot, which forensic analysis reported had been fired from an unlicensed country-made pistol.
- The same pistol was recovered from the juvenile, linking him directly to the crime.
Relying on the forensic report, CCTV footage, and testimonies of witnesses, the court concluded that the weapon used by the juvenile was "in working condition" and that he had "illegally used an unlicensed country-made pistol" to kill Rajesh.
Defence Arguments and Court's Rejection
The defence raised several arguments in an attempt to challenge the conviction:
- Witness Reliability: The defence argued that three jail officials present at the spot could not be counted as eyewitnesses because they had only "heard the gunshot", not seen the shooting. The court rejected this argument, stating it was "not necessary" that all or any of these witnesses was required to "literally see" the minor firing upon Rajesh. The court noted that the witnesses were "purposely present at the spot" as they had custody of Rajesh, and therefore, were "the most relevant and reliable witnesses".
- Parity Plea: The defence also raised a plea of parity, arguing that since the other two alleged conspirators, Satish and Raj Kumar, had been acquitted in a different case, the juvenile should receive similar treatment. The court rejected this plea, noting that it was a different case and did not apply to the juvenile's situation, emphasizing the unique circumstances and evidence in this conviction.
This verdict highlights the court's rigorous approach in evaluating evidence and dismissing defence claims, ensuring justice in a case that has drawn attention due to its violent nature and the involvement of a juvenile offender.
