Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(J&K) 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
TASHI RABSTAN, VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JJ.
State of J&K – Appellant
Versus
Kulbir Singh – Respondent
CRAA No. 21 of 2010
Decided On : 10-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Aseem Sawhney.
For the Respondent: Ms. Deepika Mahajan.

Point of Law: principles relating to interference by the High Court in appeals against acquittal are well settled. While the High Court can review the entire evidence and reach its own conclusions, it will not interfere with the acquittal by the trial court unless there are strong reasons based on evidence which can dislodge the findings arrived at by the trial court, which were the basis for the acquittal. The High Court has to give due importance to the conclusions of the trial court, if they had been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence.

Headnote:
Ranbir Penal Code, Sections 302 - Arms Act - 4/25 - Appeal - Acquittal - Motive behind the murder - accused/respondent, in view of previous enmity, with an intention to kill, attacked his brother, namely, Rakesh Kumar, with a kirch at about 4.45 PM and inflicted injuries in his abdomen and back resulting in causing grievance injuries who was shifted to hospital at Kathua where he succumbed to injuries.
Finding of the Court:
While the High Court can review the entire evidence and reach its own conclusions, it will not interfere with the acquittal by the Trial court unless there are strong reasons based on evidence which can dislodge the findings arrived at by the Trial court, which were the basis for the acquittal and that the High Court has to give due importance to the conclusions of the Trial court, if they had been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. It also emerges that the High Court will interfere in appeals against acquittals, only where the Trial court makes wrong assumptions of material facts or fails to appreciate the evidence properly - Prosecution has failed to establish that the accused is guilty of having committed the offence, he stands charged with.
Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.09.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua, (for short “Trial Court”) by virtue of which the respondent has been acquitted from commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act in FIR bearing No. 10/2004 of Police Station, Kathua.

2. Appeal has been filed, inter-alia, on the ground that the judgment is bad in the eyes of law as the prosecution has succeeded to prove the motive behind the murder of the deceased. It is stated that the Trial court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its true and correct perspective. It is also stated that the learned Trial court has ignored the pieces of evidence as well as medical report that are the sufficient proof of involvement of the accused/respondent. It is submitted that the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures inasmuch as it has taken a hyper technical approach.

3. The brief resume of prosecution case is as under.

4. PW-1 Roop Lal telephonically informed Police Station Kathua that the accused/ respondent, in view of previous enmity, with an intention to kill, attacked his brother, namely, Rakesh Kumar, with a kirch at about 4.45 PM and inflicted injuries in his abdomen and back resulting in causing grievance injuries who was shifted to hospital at Kathua where he succumbed to injuries.

5. On the basis of telephonic information, so received by the police, FIR No. 10/2004 for offences punishable under Sections 307 RPC and 4/25 RPC, was registered against the respondent and investigation commenced. The police, after recording the statements of the witnesses as well as completing other formalities and on completion of the investigation, found offences punishable under sections 302 and 4/25 Arms Act established against the accused and accordingly charge sheeted him. The charges were framed against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act.

6. The charge against the accused is that on 04.01.2004 at Ward No. 4 on account of previous enmity and with preparation, he attacked the deceased, Rakesh Kumar, with kirch and inflicted injuries with such kirch in his abdomen and back and due to injuries so inflicted he died, thus, committed offences punishable under section 302 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act.

7. To prove the charges, the prosecution relied upon oral as well as documentary evidence. The oral evidence relied upon by the prosecution are PWs Madan Lal, Om Parkash, Bansi Lal, Mukhtiar Chand, Pumma, Bal Krishan, K.K. Sharma, Jaffar Ullah Khan, MHC, Mohd Shafi, ASI, Dr. V.S. Jamwal, Inspector Rovel Singh and Surinder Khadyal ASI/SHO.

8. The documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution are seizure memo of dead body (Ex-PW-RL), receipt of dead body (Ex-PW RL-1), seizure of blood stained clay Ex-PW-RL-2, Seizure memo of plain clay Ex-PW-RS/3, seizure memo of clothes of deceased (Ex-PW-RL/2), seizure memo of cloths of accused (Ex-PW-12-JU), disclosure memo (Ex-PW-SS), recovery memo of weapon of offence (Ex-PW-SS/1), Suprdnama (Ex-PW-MS), death report (Ex-PW-RS/4), post-mortem report (Ex-PW-16/VS), certificate of resealing (Ex-PW-10-KK), Aks of weapon of offence (Ex-PW-SS/3) and the revenue record (Ex-PW-9/BK/1).

9. To appreciate the grounds taken by the appellant in this appeal, it is necessary to give brief resume of the evidence produced before the Trial court by the prosecution in order to find out whether the same has been properly appreciated by the Trial Court or not, while acquitting the accused/respondent.

10. PW-1 Roop Lal is the brother of the deceased. He has deposed that his brother was working with the accused as labourer. Prior to his death, he had gone for work. He and his wife (PW-2) were at home when at about 4.45 PM, he heard cries near his house. H