The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Material contradictions in witness statements and the non-examination of the investigating officer can be fatal to the prosecution's case.

1. Appellant -Anoop Singh, who has been convicted by trial Court (3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu) vide judgments dated 15.12.2003 in FIR No.280/89 under section 307/353/201 RPC of Police Station Digiana Jammu, has filed present appeal on various grounds.

2. In the memo of appeal, it has been stated that during trial, Court has recorded statements of three witnesses, who all were police personnel and no independent witness has been examined. That prosecution story is that accused party at the time of alleged occurrence were standing at ‘Kharad shop’, that too in a day time and in busy market, still police could not produce even a single private witness as prosecution witness. That neither empty cartridges were seized which allegedly were fired from the firm arm of accused nor Toka allegedly possessed by other accused was seized. That police too has stated that they fired on the accused but neither said weapon nor empty cartridges were seized. That Investigating Officer did not appear in Court so all the documents in Challan including FIR have not been proved.

3. The case of the prosecution is that Accused No. 1, who was involved in FIR No. 280/89 and in many other cases was absconding. On 23-05-1989, Prem Chand, Head Constable Incharge Police Post, Digiana, had come to know at about 1545 hrs that accused Anoop Singh along with his brother were standing in a shop at Digiana. Further, it was found that both these accused persons were equipped with arms and ammunition and is likely to commit any offence on the spot. After receiving this information, Prem Chand, HC along with other police personals went towards Digiana for arresting the accused persons. When the accused persons saw the police party proceeding towards them, both the accused persons ran away from the spot. While fleeing from the spot, accused Anoop Singh had fired upon the police party with his revolver with an intention to kill them and they saved their lives by laying down on the ground. The other accused was having Tokka in his hand at the time of incident. The Police party could not arrest the accused due to firing by the accused. Later on, the accused Anoop Sigh was arrested by the police and during interrogation accused Anoop Singh had stated that the revolver with which he had fired upon the police party, was thrown by him in the canal. The revolver could not be traced out from the canal, this way accused Anoop Singh had destroyed the weapon of offence by throwing it in the canal. Further, it is asserted in the challan that both the accused persons had created terror in the Digiana area and whole of the population of Digiana area was afraid of these two persons, as such, none of the person from the locality was ready to appear as witness in the case. Therefore, local people could not array as witnesses. Thereafter, police registered a case and after investigation had produced the challan against two accused namely Anoop Singh and his brother Simarnjeet Singh in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu under sections 307/307/353/201 RPC, who committed this case to the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, who in turn, transferred the case for trial to the Court of 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu.

4. On 12.2.1990 accused Simaranjeet was discharged and Anoop Singh was charge-sheeted u/s 307/353/201 RPC. Accused denied the accusation and prosecution was directed to produce the evidence. Prosecution cited as many as 11 witnesses, but examined only three witnesses.

PW Head Constable Prem Chand, No. 285-J

On examination in Chief by SPP, has stated that accused person present in the court is known to him. On 23-5-1989, he was on duty at Police Post, Gangyal. He alongwith Raj Singh, Thoru Ram, Ali Mohd., Jang Bhadur, Des Raj, Naresh Kumar and Shamsher Singh, constable were investigating the case FIR No. 280/1989 u/s 323/341 RPC against the accused persons namely Anoop Singh and Pappi, who were being searched at Digiana. During the investigat