Back
2017 Supreme(J&K) 213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
State of Jammu & Kashmir - Appellant
Vs.
Ajay Kumar Mehta, S/o Sh. Suraj Parkash & Ors. - Respondents
Case: Cr. Acq. Appeal No.49 of 2005
Decided on : 25-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG
For the Respondent:Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate
The burden of proof in criminal cases always remains on the prosecution, and the evidence presented must be reliable, corroborated, and beyond a reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Acquittal Appeal - Murder - Sections 302/341 read with Section 34 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act - The court discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and found inconsistencies and contradictions in their statements. The court also highlighted the delay in recording the statements of the witnesses and the lack of corroboration from independent sources. The prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused Vijay Kumar.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with others, committed the murder of the deceased due to an old enmity. The prosecution presented witnesses and evidence to support their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The delay in recording the statements of the witnesses and the lack of corroboration from independent sources raised doubts about the reliability of the evidence. The court also noted the failure of the prosecution to prove the involvement of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issues in the case revolved around the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, the delay in recording their statements, and the lack of corroboration from independent sources.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of reliable and corroborated evidence in criminal cases, especially in cases of murder. The burden of proof always remains on the prosecution, and the court cannot convict based on moral conviction or suspicion.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the accused Vijay Kumar.
Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.
1. Being aggrieved of the judgment rendered by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, dated 31.12.2003 whereby acquitting the respondent-Vijay Kumar (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘accused’), State has preferred present Cr. Acq. Appeal No.49/2005.
2. At the very outset, it is made clear that during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 has died. The trial against this accused was already stayed by court below on 15.2.2002 in terms of section 464/465 of Cr.P. C.
3. In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 09.03.1994, SI I/C Police Post Panjtirithi along with constables Doulat Ram No.1142, Gulzar Hussain No.1685 and Darshan Kumar No.1726, while patrolling on reaching near D.B.N. School, Mubarak Mandi, Jammu, received information from reliable source about causing of grievous injuries on chest, head and abdomen of Surinder Kumar alias Gogu S/o Gursharan Dass R/o Kali Jani, Jammu, who was going on his scooter to his shop from the side of Mubarak Mandi, in the lane of Gadadhar Temple, by two persons namely Ajay Kumar Mehta S/o Suraj Parkash R/o Tangawali Gali and the another unknown person, armed with ‘kirch’ and ‘tokas’ respectively ; the accused had run away from the spot and the injured was being taken to the hospital in auto rickshaw. This led to the registration of FIR No.87/1994 for the commission of offence initially under Sections 307, 341/34 RPC read with Section 4/25 Arms and thereafter under Sections 302/341 read with Section 34 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act. During investigation, the spot was inspected, site plan was prepared, one piece of cloth soaked with blood lying on spot was seized and sealed, scooter No.7980-JK02 was seized and SI Prem Raj Shan, Incharge Police Post, Panjtirthi was deputed to hospital and photograph of the dead body were taken. During investigation, it was found that Surinder Kumar alias Gogu S/o Gursharan Dass has succumbed to the injuries while carrying him to hospital. The dead body was taken into possession by the police and postmortem was got conducted and during postmortem, seized the clothes of the deceased, filled Fard-surat Hall , sent the blood stained clothes of the deceased for chemical tests to the FSL as well as blood of deceased taken in a bottle and dead body of the deceased was handed over to his heirs for last rites. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C. were also recorded. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Agency concluded that motive attributed to the accused to commit crime was the old enmity between Sikander, brother of deceased Surinder Kumar alias Gogu, who used to stand surety for his brother and accused Ajay Kumar along with other accused had committed the crime to eliminate Surinder Kumar to prevent him from standing surety anymore. The Final Police Report was presented before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff), Jammu for the offence under Sections 302/341 read with Section 34 RPC and 4/25 Arms, against accused, namely, Ajay Kumar Mehta only because the other accused absconded after commission of the offence and the police made a request for proceeding under Section 512 Cr. P.C. against accused Vijay Kumar. The learned Judicial Magistrate after recording statement of the searching constable committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial of the accused as one of offences under Section 302 RPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
4. On 26.12.1994 accused Ajay Mehta was charge sheeted under Section 302/34 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act. The contents of the charge sheet were read over and explained to him, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During pendency of the case for recording prosecution evidence against accused Ajay Mehta, supplementary challan was produced against other accused, namely, Vijay Kumar and on 29.06.1995 he too was charge-sheeted under Section 302/34 RPC.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined Raj Kumar, Ravi Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Kamal Ku
