(Per R.C.Gandhi, J)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the judgment and orders dated: 16.8.2001 and 22.8.2001 whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge, Anantnag for commission of offence under Section 302 RPC to suffer sentence of life imprisonment and under Section 309 RPC to suffer sentence of simple imprisonment of three months. The reference has also been made under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code to this court for confirmation of the sentence which has also been heard alongwith the appeal.

2. A report was lodged on 11.9.1997 by PW-5, Shri D.S. Maan, Officer Commanding F-Coy 85 Bn. CRPF in Police Station Anantnag stating therein that 85 Bn. was deployed in Handoor Building Eid Gah Road Anantnag for law and order duty and an incident of shooting took place in the said premises at 7.05 hours. It is alleged that constable Pramood Kumar shot at constable Deshpal Singh, as a result thereof, Deshpal Singh received injuries and has been shifted to the civil hospital for treatment. FIR No. 275/1997 was registered in police station Anantnag and the investigation entrusted to Mohammad Abdullah ASI, PW No.21. It is further stated that the appellant/accused has also attempted to commit suicide. He has caused injury on his chin with his rifle. He was also admitted in the hospital. It is also alleged that some of his colleagues succeeded in snatching riffle from the accused. The injured succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Post mortem was conducted on the dead body on 11.9.1997 at 11.30 A.M.

3. During the course of investigation the weapon of offence viz 7.62 SLR rifle alongwith empty magazine besides fired and live cartridges were seized, wearing apparel of the deceased viz torn uniform shirt and torn undershirt were also seized and sent for examination to the J&K Forensic Science Laboratory, Srinagar. The report of examination has been received by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan, collected other evidence and recorded the statements of twenty-two prosecution witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C.

4. Challan was presented before the court. The appellant did not plead guilty. He was charge sheeted and put to trial. Out of the said listed witnesses the prosecution has examined PWs, Raju Yadev, Rakesh Kumar, Sheshi Bushan, Dayanand, D.S. Maan, L. Naik Abdul Rouf, Naik Bhim Sing, Chotay Lal, Sogna Ram, Rajinder Kumar, Surinder Paswan, Ghulam Hassan Khandey Photographer, Dr. Altaf Hussain Beigh, Shiekh Mohammad Shafi Scientific Officer Ballististics and Abdul Rashid Sub Inspector. On appreciation of the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial court has recorded the judgment of conviction and sentence for commission of offences by the appellant under Section 302 and 309 RPC relying upon ocular evidence of PW Raju Yadev and circumstantial evidence of PWs Rakesh Kumar, Sheshi Bushan, Chotay Lal, Abdul Rouf, D.S. Maan and Naik Bhim Singh besides the medical and other incriminating evidence.

5. Aggrieved of the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial court, the appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the impugned judgment on the ground that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its legal perspective and the major contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of witnesses has not been correctly appreciated and recorded in the course of the impugned judgment. Even the evidenciary value of medical evidence and the evidence of recovery of weapon of offence has not been correctly appreciated.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the court on the impugned judgment and the statements of prosecution witnesses for its appreciation by the court. On appreciation of the impugned judgment it is seen that the learned trial court has recorded that there is total corroboration of evidence of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document