IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
TASHI RABSTAN, VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JJ.
State of J&K – Appellant
Versus
Rattanjeet Singh – Respondent
CRAA No. 142 of 2010
Decided On : 10-03-2021
Criminal Law - Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 - Sections 302, 201 - Arms Act - Sections 4/25 - Evidence Act - Section 27 - Offence of Murder - Injuries/Wounds/Weapons - Circumstantial evidence - Eye-witnesses - Appeal against Acquittal - Motive/Intention - Whether proved - An information received through reliable sources that accused shot dead his wife in his house - Investigation on its completion, it was found that PW had given his 12 bore Rifle to another PW for repairing, who had kept rifle in his house and accused, who happens to be his brother, took out said rifle in his absence and went to Forest for hunting - He came back from Forest empty handed, reached home and at that time his wife was peeling onions on roof of their house, she asked accused as to why he had come empty handed and told him that in future she would herself go for hunting - On this, he got enraged and fired upon deceased, who died on spot and after commission of offence, he concealed gun inside house of his brother.
Finding of the Court:
None of witnesses to recovery have supported prosecution version, in view of statements made by these witnesses, recovery of rifle pursuant to alleged disclosure becomes highly doubtful and same has not been prove - It is evident from the evidence recorded that fact that gun being in house of PW was within knowledge of not only witnesses but also within the knowledge of PW-Jagdish Singh, owner of weapon - Conditions, therefore, necessary for applicability of Section 27 of Evidence Act are not fulfilled, thereby making disclosure statement of accused EXPW-3/A inadmissible in evidence - Death of deceased had been caused due to gunshot injury fired from seized 12 bore rifle - No evidence on record to connect accused with firing of gun shot - Neither eye witnesses have supported prosecution version nor circumstantial evidence has proved it - Prosecution failed to prove that recovery of weapon of offence was effected pursuant to disclosure made by accused - Death of deceased due to gunshot injury was to be proved by showing the link between accused and death of deceased - This link is missing and the prosecution has failed to prove the same - There is no evidence on record to prove any motive whatsoever for the accused to have committed the murder of deceased - Although motive is not necessary to be proved in a case of murder, yet in absence of any reliable evidence against accused, the absence of any motive for the accused to commit alleged crime assumes great importance.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment dated 31.08.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri (hereinafter to be referred as the “Trial Court”) in Case FIR No. 28/2002 registered with Police Station, Nowshera, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act, by virtue of which the respondent-Rattanjeet Singh, has been acquitted of the aforesaid charges.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an FIR No. 28/2002 for offences under Sections 302, 201 RPC and 4/25A. Act was registered with Police Station, Nowshera, on 06.04.2002 on the basis of an information received through reliable sources that accused shot dead his wife Smt. Seema Devi at about 6.15 PM in his house. After registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced. On its completion, it was found that on 06.04.2002 PW-Jagdish Singh had given his 12 bore Rifle to PW-Dharam Paul for repairing, who had kept the rifle in his house and accused Rattanjeet Singh, who happens to be his brother, took out the said rifle in his absence and went to Forest for hunting. He came back from the Forest empty handed, reached home and at that time his wife was peeling onions on the roof of their house, she asked the accused as to why he had come empty handed and told him that in future she would herself go for hunting. On this, he got enraged and fired upon the deceased, who died on spot and after the commission of offence, he concealed the gun inside the house of his brother. The police after having completed the investigation found the offences proved against the accused and accordingly presented the Challan.
3. The accused was charged on 08.08.2002 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act and formal charge was framed. He pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. To prove the charge, prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence.
4. Oral evidence of prosecution was PWs Mohan Singh, Babu Lal, Sansar Singh, Vishwa Nath, S. Prem Singh, Dharam Paul, Santosh Kumari, Puma Devi, Jagdish Singh, Krishana Wanti, Shakuntla Devi and Tilak Raj and PWs Raj Kumar, Dr. Ashok Verma, Smt. Vivek Sharma, Tehsildar, Vinod Kumar, Nazir Hussain Inspector and S.R. Samual.
Documentary evidence was in the shape of seizure memo of dead body (EXPW-1/A), receipt dead body (EXPW-1/B), seizure memo of knife and peeled onions (EXPW-1/C), seizure memo of blood stained cement (EXPW-1/D), seizure memo of cartridges (EXPW-1/E) and seizure memo of clothes of the deceased (EXPW-1/F), memo of disclosure (EXPW-3/A), post mortem report (EXPW-18-M/AV).
5. The Trial Court, on completion of the trial and on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused and accordingly acquitted him. The order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court has been challenged in this Appeal, inter-alia, on the following grounds:
2. the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence.
3. that there is enough evidence to prove the charge for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act, against the accused.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the evidence recorded during the trial.
7. To appreciate the grounds taken up in the appeal and the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the parties, it would be proper to give brief resume of the evidence produced during the trial.
8. PW-1 Mohan Singh has deposed that deceased was his sister and she was married to accused. She was murdered by her husband i.e. accused. He came to know about death of his sister on the same day in the evening when he was at his home in Village Darila. He went to the house of deceased on the same day at about 8.30 PM and by then police had already reached the spot. Dead body of deceased was lying on the roof of the hou
SupremeToday
The appellate court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of credible evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Eyewitness testimony must be scrutinized for credibility, especially when inconsistencies arise and key witnesses are absent, impacting the prosecution's case.
The refusal of the accused to undergo TIP, the recovery of the weapon of offence, and the consistent testimony of eyewitnesses can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court upheld a murder conviction based on consistent eyewitness testimony and reliable forensic evidence, establishing clear identification of the accused in a firearms-related homicide.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on direct evidence, including confessional statements and the recovery of the crime weapon and ammunition, to establish the appellant'....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.