Back
2018 Supreme(J&K) 469
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Alok Aradhe, Sanjay Kumar Gupta, JJ.
State of J&K - Appellant
Vs.
Pankaj Singh and ors. – Respondent
CRAA No. 07 of 2013
Decided On : 30-07-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be cogently and firmly established, of a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused, and form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else.
Headnote:
Acquittal Appeal - Criminal Law - Sections 366/376-G/302/201/34 RPC - The judgment discusses the scope of power of appellate court in case of acquittal appeal, highlighting the approach of the High Court, the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and the reluctance of the appellate court in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. The court re-appreciates the whole evidence on record and provides a brief resume of the prosecution evidence, including the statements of witnesses and the findings of the trial court. The judgment emphasizes the principles for proving a case based on circumstantial evidence and discusses the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, the cogency of the evidence, and the chain of evidence required to sustain a conviction. The court evaluates the confessional statement of the accused, the identification of the accused, the alleged disclosure statement, and the forensic evidence, ultimately concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case involves the discovery of an unidentified decomposed dead body of a woman in a water channel near T-Morh Udhampur, leading to the registration of a case under Sections 366/376-G/302/201/34 RPC. The prosecution examined 37 witnesses to support the charges, but the court below acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the confessional statement of the accused, the identification of the accused, the alleged disclosure statement, and the forensic evidence were not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also noted flaws in the investigation, including discrepancies in the FSL reports and the delay in conducting DNA tests. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolve around the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the admissibility and reliability of the confessional statement, the identification of the accused, the alleged disclosure statement, and the forensic evidence, and the flaws in the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasizes the principles for proving a case based on circumstantial evidence, including the conditions that must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established, the cogency and conclusiveness of the circumstances, and the chain of evidence required to sustain a conviction. The court also highlights the burden of proof on the prosecution and the need for the evidence to be legally admissible and free from any doubts regarding the involvement of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed as the court does not find any compelling and substantial reason to disturb the well-reasoned judgment already recorded by the trial court, which is based on the appreciation of the entire evidence on record.
Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned judgment dated 28.08.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur in case FIR No.40/2010 registered with Police Station Udhampur for the offences punishable under Sections 366/376-G/302/201/34 RPC, whereby acquitting the respondents, State has preferred the instant acquittal appeal.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.10.2008 source information was received in Police Station, Udhampur that an unidentified decomposed dead body of a woman was lying in a water channel near T-Morh Udhampur. Since the death was found to have taken place in suspicious circumstances so Report No.22 was entered in Daily Diary dated 03.10.2008 and inquest proceedings in terms of Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated by ASI Madan Lal. He proceeded on spot, prepared the sketch map of the place of recovery of dead body. A Farad Surat Hall was prepared and dead body was sent for postmortem to District Hospital Udhampur. On 04.10.2008 dead body was identified to be that of Smt Makhno Devi D/o Devi Chand. A Board of Doctors conducted the postmortem of the deceased. The wearing apparels including blood/semen stained Shalwar of the deceased were seized and sealed. The statements of witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 175 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the inquest proceedings were entrusted to Sh. Manoj Dhar SI, on 04.10.2008 and finally to Ayaz Ahmed Sheikh Dy.SP on 25.09.2009. He dispatched the Shalwar of the deceased to FSL. The report was received from FSL and as per the FSL report and statement of one Parshotam Kumar, it was found to be a case of rape and murder. So a case u/s 376/302/34 RPC was registered and investigation was handed over to Padamdev Singh SI. He seized the documents and arrested accused Rajan Kumar on the basis of suspicious u/s 54 Cr.P.C. on 11.02.2010. During investigation, he confessed that he along with other accused, committed rape upon the deceased against her wish and thereafter killed her by throwing down the bridge in a water channel. The confessional statement of the accused was recorded and all the accused were arrested. On the basis of confession so made the place of occurrence was identified. Identification parade of accused Pritam Kumar was conducted through PW Salim in presence of Executive Magistrate Ist Class. Statements of witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 164-A Cr.P.C. and u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The blood samples of accused were collected for DNA test and forwarded to CFSL Hyderabad. During investigation it was found that on 25.09.2008 at about 7.30 P.M. the deceased was walking on road side near T-Morh Udhampur. Accused No.1 forcibly kidnapped her towards a secluded place where all the accused gang raped her and thereafter killed her by pushing her down the nallah. The Cell Phone and purse of the deceased was taken by accused Pankaj Singh. It also came to the force during investigation that the deceased had met PW Vijender Singh alias Deepak on 25.09.2009 in Udhampur Market, who asked his friend Rakesh Rana to drop the deceased on his motor cycle at Umara Morh. Thereafter Vijender rang the deceased on her cell phone No.9858035096 from his cell phone No.9906319850 but he only heard the screams of the deceased where the deceased could not be traced alive. After conclusion of the investigation it was found that accused had committed offences u/s 302/376-G/366/201/34 RPC and accordingly charge sheet found its way to the Court.
Accused were charge-sheeted for afore mentioned offences and pursuant to their pleading not guilty, prosecution examined as many as 37 witnesses to support the charges. Accused did not produce any evidence. Court below after conducting full trial acquitted the accused on the ground that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
3. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for State as well as respondents and gone through the evidence on record, and judgment of Court below.
