Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Janak Raj Kotwal, JJ.
Jasbir Singh and another - Petitioner
Versus
State of J&K - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2002
Decided On : 26-02-2016
CRIMINAL - Murder - Appreciation of evidence - Evidence of eye-witnesses - Scrutiny - Corroboration - Medical evidence - Recovery of weapon - Motive - Plea of alibi - Non-production of witness - Held, evidence of eye-witnesses reliable and trustworthy - Corroborated by medical evidence and FIR - Recovery of weapon of offence - Plea of alibi not proved - Non-production of witness not fatal - Appeal dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was stabbed to death by the appellants and the co-accused. The prosecution relied on the evidence of four eye-witnesses, one of whom was not produced before the court. The appellants challenged the judgment of the trial court on the grounds that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was not reliable and trustworthy, that the plea of alibi was not properly considered, and that the non-production of the witness was fatal to the prosecution case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was reliable and trustworthy and was corroborated by the medical evidence and the FIR lodged by the deceased's uncle. The court also found that the plea of alibi was not proved and that the non-production of the witness was not fatal to the prosecution case.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the eye-witnesses was reliable and trustworthy. 2. Whether the plea of alibi was properly considered. 3. Whether the non-production of the witness was fatal to the prosecution case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was reliable and trustworthy because it was consistent and duly corroborated by medical evidence. 2. The court held that the plea of alibi was not proved because the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim that they were not at the scene of the crime at the time of the murder. 3. The court held that the non-production of the witness was not fatal to the prosecution case because the evidence of the other witnesses was sufficient to prove the appellants' guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Kotwal, J.
This is appeal against judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu dated 11-12-2002 whereby appellant, Jasbir Singh (A-1), has been convicted under Sections 302, 201, RPC and 4/25 Arms Act and appellant-Joginder Singh (A-2) under Sections 302/34, RPC and order dated 12-12-2002 whereby A-1 has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302, RPC, imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 201, RPC and imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 4/25 Arms Act and A-2 to imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34, RPC. A-2 has died during pendency of this appeal.
2. Heard. We have perused the record.
3. Prosecution case is that on 11-10-1991 one Rashpal Singh alias Bablu (hereinafter to be referred as the deceased), a resident of village, Malikpura, Tehsil, R.S. Pura, had come to attend the marriage ceremony of the daughter of one Pritam Singh at Camp Gol Gujral, Jammu. At 7.30 p.m. he after attending the wedding was on his way to the house of his Aunt (mother’s sister). When he reached near the shop of A-2, A-2, his son, A-1 (Jasbir Singh) and one Harjeet Singh alias Koki (hereinafter to be referred as the co-accused) with a common criminal intention because of a previous enmity made a murderous attack on him. A-2 and the co-accused caught hold of the deceased by his arms and A-1 inflicted blows on his person with a dagger. In his bid to save his life the deceased ran away and fell in the nearby canal. He crossed to other side of the canal. A-1, A-2 and the co-accused also crossed the canal by using a ‘wooden poli’ available on spot and attacked the deceased once again. This time A-2 caught hold of the deceased and A-1 and the co-accused inflicted blows on him with a ‘kirch’ and a dagger. A-2 exhorted that the deceased should not escape alive. On hearing noise, S. Ragbir Singh (PW-3), his brother, S. Jaswant Singh (PW-4), Inderjeet Singh (PW-5) and some others came on spot and on seeing them the assailants ran away. PW-4 evacuated the deceased to hospital at Jammu whereas PW-3 accompanied by Satinder Singh (PW-7) proceeded to Police Post, Pony Chak for lodging information. PW-3 lodged verbal information of the incident which was entered as report No. 19 dated 11-10-1991 in the daily diary of the Police Post. On the basis of this report, MR No. 162/1991 under Sections 307/34, RPC was registered at Police Station, Domana and investigation entrusted to Wazir Ahmed Ganal, officer-in-charge, Police Post, Pony Chak. On the same day the deceased succumbed to his injuries in the hospital and the case was converted to one under Sections 302 and 201/34, RPC and 4/27 Arms Act. In the course of investigation the Investigating Officer (I.O.) proceeded to the hospital, took charge of the dead body of the deceased and dispatched it for post-mortem. He visited the place of occurrence and prepared sketch-map of the crime scene. A-1 and A-2 were arrested and on the basis of disclosure statement made by A-1 a ‘kirch’ was recovered on 23-10-1991 as the weapon of offence.
4. After complying with the formalities of the investigation Police preferred charge-sheet under Sections 302/34 and 201, RPC 4/27 Arms Act against the accused A-1, A-2 and the co-accused, besides making a prayer for proceeding in terms of Section 512, Cr.P.C. against the co-accused. The case after committal came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. Learned trial Court on examination of the charge-sheet and record of the case framed charge under Sections 302/34, RPC against A-2 and under Sections 302/34, 201, RPC and 4/27 Arms Act against A-1. Both of them denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Prosecution thus entered its evidence and examined 11 witnesses. Learned trial Court recorded statements of the appellants under Section 342, Cr.P.C. who in turn took the plea of alibi and alleged false implication by the prosecution witnesses and produced three witnesses in defence. A
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
