The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to produce sustainable evidence to prove the accused's responsibility for the alleged offense, particularly in cases where medical evidence contradicts other forms of evidence.

1. The appellants, Vinod Kumar alias Jumbu and Susheel Kumar alias Manka, have questioned their conviction under Section 302/34 RPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- each recorded by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu vide his Judgment of April 30, 2009 and Order of May 01, 2009, by their Criminal Appeal No. 29/2009.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the Appeal and the confirmation Reference for confirmation of the appellants’ sentence of life imprisonment, made by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, "the trial Court", for short, may be summarized thus:-

There was enmity between the appellants’ father and the father of Ravinder Kumar-deceased, which had resulted in the filing of a Criminal Case against the appellants’ father, who was alleged to have caused injuries to the father of the deceased. The father of the appellants was, however, acquitted in the case by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu on 16.10.2001.

It was pursuant to the above referred old enmity between the parents of the appellants and the deceased that on 11.05.2006, appellant-Vinod Kumar is stated to have taken Ravinder Kumar-deceased along, for participation in the Dinner in connection with the marriage of Harbans Lal’s Son which had been arranged at Saryara Sabha Press Morh, Bahu Fort, Jammu. Appellant-Vinod Kumar, Ravinder Kumar-deceased and one Bodh Raj who joined them on their way, consumed liquor in the nearby Dhaba of Balwant Raj. After taking liquor, Bodh Raj went his own way whereas the duo proceeded towards the Saryara Sabha to participate in the Marriage Dinner. Ravinder Kumar-deceased, consumed more liquor, which he was carrying with him in a pouch, in the marriage party and became un-conscious. Vinod Kumar, lifted him with the help of his brother Susheel Kumar and both of them took him towards the bathroom. The appellants are stated to have hit the deceased with a stone near the bathroom till he was dead.

The case was initially investigated by Police Station Bagh-e-Bahu, Jammu pursuant to the registration of FIR No. 21/06 under Section 302 RPC in this behalf whereafter the investigation was completed by the Crime Branch Police Station, Jammu, which filed the Final Police Report against the appellants for committing the Murder of Ravinder Kumar because of the old enmity.

Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, (Ist Additional Munsiff), Jammu, committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, who transferred it for disposal to the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, the trial Court.

Finding a prima facie case against the appellants, they were charged under Section 302/34 RPC to which they pleaded `Not Guilty’ and claimed to be tried.

To sustain the Charge, the prosecution had relied on PW Nos. 2 & 3, who were stated to have witnessed the occurrence, PW Nos. 17 & 18, who were witnesses to the disclosure made by the appellants, pursuant whereto a Stone was recovered with which the appellants are stated to have hit the deceased, besides the Circumstantial evidence of the appellants having been last seen with the deceased before his death.

Out of the two eye witnesses cited in the Final Police Report, only PW-2 was produced in the Court whereas PW-3 was given up by the prosecution. PW-2 did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. Out of the two witnesses who had been cited to support the appellants’ disclosure and the recovery of Stone, only PW-18 was produced, who too did not support the prosecution case. Whereas PW-17 was given up by the prosecution.

Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the eye witness account of the occurrence as projected in the Final Police Report and the alleged disclosure made by the appellants pursuant whereto the weapon of offence i.e. the Stone was stated to have been recovered at the instance of the appellants, as the two witnesses cited for the purpose did not support the prosecution case.

There, thus, remained only the circumstantial evidence o