Back
2019 Supreme(J&K) 171
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
GITA MITTAL, TASHI RABSTAN, JJ.
State of J&K - Appellant
Versus
Vaibahav Kumar Misra - Respondent
CRAA No. 32 of 2009
Decided On : 01-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sanchit Verma, Advocate vice and Raman Sharma, Dy. AG
For the Respondents:Sachin Sharma, Advocate
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 342 - charge sheet – Offence of death - Court have heard who appears for Deputy Advocate General and for respondent - record of trial court has also been produced before us which has also been perused - Court have given our considered thought to submissions made before us - Before examining grounds on which challenge is laid Court may briefly note background facts giving rise to registration of case by Police of Police Station - Prosecution before trial court was that on at around hours informed police that on at about couple namely and his wife residents of Kanpur hired room in Hotel – Held Generally order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because presumption of innocence of accused is further strengthened by acquittal - Golden thread which runs through web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on evidence adduced in case one pointing to guilt of accused and other to his innocence view which is favourable to accused should be adopted - paramount consideration of Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented - Miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of guilty is no less than from conviction of an innocent - In case where admissible evidence is ignored duty is cast upon appellate court to reap practice evidence in case where accused has been acquitted or purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of accused committed any offence or not - Principle to be followed by appellate court considering appeal against judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so - If impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable it is compelling reason for interference - Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Gita Mittal, J.
1. By the instant appeal, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 2nd May, 2009 in case arising out of FIR No. 160/2006 registered at Police Station, Katra.
2. We have heard Mr. Sanchit Verma, who appears for Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Sachin Sharma for the respondent. The record of the trial court has also been produced before us, which has also been perused. We have given our considered thought to the submissions made before us.
3. Before examining the grounds on which challenge is laid, we may briefly note the background facts giving rise to the registration of the case by the Police of Police Station, Katra.
The case of the prosecution before the trial court was that on 29th April, 2006, at around 02:10 hours, Dina Nath (P.W. 1) and Nasib Singh (P.W. 2) informed the police that on 28th April, 2006 at about 4.00 p.m., a couple namely Vishu Misra and his wife Tannu Misra residents of Kanpur (U.P.), hired a room No. 103 in Hotel Shastri Yatri Niwas, Katra. Between 1.30 to 1.45 a.m., there was noise in the said room and upon checking, both inmates i.e. Vishu Misra and Tannu Misra were found unconscious. These two persons suspected consumption of some poisonous substance by the couple and it was thought advisable to inform the police.
4. Based on this information, the police agency was set in motion and police officials who were deputed to the spot, on return, lodged a report No. 41 in the Daily Diary on 29th April, 2006. It appears that Vishu Misra and Tannu Misra, who had been found in unconscious condition, were shifted to CHC, Katra, where Tannu Misra was declared dead by the doctors while Vishu Misra was referred to Govt. Medical College, Jammu.
5. Inasmuch as, Tannu Misra had died an unnatural death, therefore, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated. The relatives of the couple were informed and postmortem was also conducted.
6. On the spot, a container with the mark QUE-PHOS/Poison containing four tablets was found which was seized. Certain vomit material lying on the floor was seized and sealed. A Duppata and a towel along with two pairs of chappal, a purse and some cosmetic items were also seized. The hotel register containing the entry at page No. 15 in the name of Man Misra on 28th April, 2006 was also seized. Telephone No. 094195736450 was found written on the wall of the room, which was found the telephone number of the father of Vishu Misra.
7. During enquiry, it was revealed that the correct name of the couple was Vaibhav Misra and Mohini Devi.
8. It was also revealed that the deceased was not wife of the Vaibhav Misra and that she stood married to one Rajesh Kumar.
9. The Viscera of the deceased was sent for chemical examination. The Forensic Science Laboratory reported that no poison was detected in the Viscera of the deceased. The doctors, who conducted postmortem, concluded that the cause of death was due to strangulation.
10. In this background, the police concluded that it was a case of murder and consequently FIR No. 160/2006 was registered under Section 302 RPC on 7th September, 2006 at Police Station, Katra.
11. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed by the Investigating Agency. By order dated 18th December, 2006, the trial court prima facie found commission of offence under Section 302 RPC by the accused/respondent herein and framed charges against him. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
12. During trial, 25 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case. The statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. No evidence in defence was led. After undertaking a detailed consideration, vide the judgment impugned dated 2nd May, 2009, the trial court held that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and that the case was based only on suspicion without any support from the evidence led on record. As such, the trial court granted benefit of doubt to the res
