The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 109 RFC and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the offences charged against the petitioner.

1. Petitioner-Prabhu Singh seeks quashment of the charge framed against him for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307,109 RFC vide impugned order dated 4-2-2012 of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in case FIR No. 86/2010. Along with him, six other co-accused are also facing the trial including his son (Sunny).

2. Pursuant to notice, Mr. Basotra, learned AAG has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The allegations as culled out from the challan are:

On 10-7-2010 at about 22.05 hours, an information was received in Police Station Bishnah to the effect that Anshu Sharma (deceased) and Akhil Sharma, both sons of Janak Raj, have been admitted in the hospital in an injured condition. SHO Police Station, Bishnah along with other police officials went to the hospital to record the statement of the injured. They were not found fit to make statement and were referred to CMC, Jammu for specialized treatment having in critical condition. Subsequently, state#31;ment of Akhil Sharma was recorded by the police in which he stated that Sunny Singh, son of the present petitioner, Vishwa Pratab Singh alias Kaka S/o Parveen Singh, Billa S/o karan Singh were inimical towards his brother Anshu Sharma and were harbouring ill will. They had also been extending threats to him. It is then alleged that on 10-07-2010 at about 9.45 pm when he was crossing a culvert situated at Deoli on a motorcycle where he found a white coloured vehicle parked on one side of the road. In the meantime, Anshu Sharma along with Sahil Sharma alias Deepu (their first cousin) were also seen coming on a motorcycle and crossing from that place. At that time, Sunny Singh, Vishwa Pratab Singh, Billa and two/three other unknown persons armed with 'toka' came out from the said vehicle and intercepted Anshu Sharma. They started assaulting him with 'tokas', as a result thereof he (Anshu Sharma) received serious injuries. Sahil Sharma, who was also on the motorcycle with the deceased, fell on one side. Akhil Sharma pounced upon the deceased and he too was injured. Certain persons present nearby reached the spot and thereafter, all the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. Akhil asked his brother (deceased) as to why he was assaulted upon which he said that it was the brain child of the present petitioner.

4. Initially, the present case was registered under Sections 307, 326, 341, 323, 201, 147, 148, 109 RFC and 4/25 Arms Act, but after the death of Anshu Sharma, Section 302 RFC was also added to it.

5. During investigation, the prosecution agency recorded the statements of Sahil Sharma, who was with the deceased and Anita Devi, who also happened to be present at a particular point of time where an altercation had ensued between the petitioner and the deceased. She is otherwise not a witness to the assault.

6. Heard Mr. Sethi, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Basotra for the State. Gone through the relevant evidence available in the challan produced by the police.

7. Mr. Sethi submits that there is no evidence available on record, connecting the present petitioner with the commission of the alleged offences. According to him, the evidence so collected does not even raise a suspicion of the involvement of the petitioner much less a grave suspicion.

8. Dwelling upon his arguments, learned counsel submits that the involvement of the petitioner is with the aid of Section 109 RFC only, that too without there being any evidence of abetment qua him. He submits that but for the aforesaid three witnesses, namely, Akhil Sharma, the first informant, Sahil Sharma and Anita Devi, admittedly, the prosecution has not recorded any other statement vis-a-vis the role of present petitioner. He has read over the statements of the aforesaid three witnesses.

9. Taking the court to the first part of the altercation where deceased had shown his displeasure to the petitioner with regard to the activities of his son, Sunny, stating that he was holding threats to hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document