Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.
State of J&K – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar and Others – Respondents
CRAA No. 9900002 of 2009
Decided On : 29-07-2021
Ranbir Penal Code - Sections 307/436/452/147/323 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against Acquittal - Attempt to murder - Appeal - Whether trial court has failed to appreciate evidence in proper manner or has wrongly mis-appreciated same, evidence produced before trial court is required to be looked into and considered - PW states that she got information that her sister-in-law was missing from her house and at that time, she was in house of her in-laws. She immediately went to her parental abode where number of people had gathered near the rivulet. Chappal and shawal of deceased was lying near rivulet which was seized by Police. Relatives of deceased present on spot were extending threats to her relations and in the meantime she went to their house. While they were inside house, accused came there and set house on fire.
Finding of the Court:
As per medical report, the burn injuries which were found on his person were of superficial burn on right forearm extending from elbow to base of fingers and another superficial burn on scalp in fronto parietal area - witnesses as per their own showing were arrested in FIR registered with regard to the murder of Kamla Devi. If they were so, how they were present on spot at the time when occurrence took place in this case. The conclusion of trial court is based upon proper evaluation and appreciation of evidence produced. On overall appreciation and evaluation of evidence produced, there can be no other conclusion except one that prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing has been shown by appellant, while arguing and referring to the material on record that any material evidence has been left or ignored or not appreciated or evidence not reliable has been relied upon.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.
1. The present Criminal Acquittal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.08.2008 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri in File No. 2/Challan in case titled as State versus Vijay Kumar and ten others, whereby the respondents, who were facing trial in FIR No. 157 of 1995 for offences punishable under sections 307/436/452/147/323 RPC, have been acquitted.
2. It is stated that during the pendency of the appeal and trial, Ashok Kumar, Sham Lal S/o Nanak Chand and Gansham alias Shammi Kumar S/o Krishan Lal have died. The trial Court after holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations against the accused dismissed the challan and acquitted the accused. The order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court has been challenged in this appeal by the State precisely on the ground that trial court has mis-appreciated the evidence on record and, thus, erred in acquitting the accused. The prosecution had established the commission of offences against the accused but the trial court without giving due weightage to the evidence passed the order of acquittal. The evidence produced before the trial court establishes charges against the accused/respondents beyond any reasonable doubt. The order of acquittal is, therefore, required to be reversed and accused convicted and sentenced for commission of offences for which they were charged.
3. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that an FIR No. 156 of 1995 for offences punishable under Sections 302/203 RPC was being investigated by Mr. Hem Raj, Sub Inspector (SI) Police Station, Rajouri while camping in the village Patrera, Panjgrain with regard to murder of a lady, namely, Kamla Devi W/o Vijay Kumar (accused). He recorded the statement of one Khoju Ram S/o Kala Ram R/o Patreara, Panjgrain on 14.05.1995 and found that Mst. Kamla Devi W/o Vijay Kumar-accused missing from her residence on which the police started its search operation. Her cloths were found at the bank of the rivulet and her dead body was also found in the said rivulet in the afternoon. At that time Vijay Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Ss/o Rajinder Kumar, Ajay Kumar S/o Badri Nath R/o Dangri, Ashok Kumar, Gulshan Kumar S/o Nanak Chand R/o Mubarakpur, Krishan Lal S/o Behari Lal R/o village Dassal, Om Prakash S/o Sant Ram R/o Dangri, Sham Lal S/o Nanak Chand R/o Mubarakpur, Kewel Krishan S/o Behari Lal R/o Dassal, Subash Chander S/o Om Parkash R/o Dangri, Vijay Kumar S/o Pritam Lal R/o Mubarakpur, Kewal Krishan S/o Khoju Ram R/o Dangri, Bitu S/o Kewal Krishan R/o Dangri Gulshan Kumar S/o Rattan Lal and some other persons started crying and thereafter they entered into the house of Khoju Ram and his sons, namely, Vijay Kumar and Mukesh Kumar and set their houses on fire. Khoju Ram, Jyotsana D/o Tirath Ram and Priyanka Bala D/o Mukesh Kumar were locked inside the house when the house was set on fire. They were taken out by the Police. Khoju Ram got unconscious. Hem Raj-SI after recording the statement of Khoju Ram, regarding the incident in question, forwarded the same to Incharge Police Station Rajouri for registration of FIR and accordingly, FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 436/452/307/147/RPC and investigation was started. As per the police, the investigation was completed and the aforesaid offences were established against the accuses persons. The charge sheet regarding the same was filed in the court and charges for said offences were framed against the accused. The prosecution led the evidence. After the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found that offences are not established against the accused and while acquitting them, dismissed the charge.
4. The case of the prosecution in appeal is that the evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial Court was sufficient to hold the accused guilty but the trial court had mis-appreciated the evidence and came to a wrong conclusion thereby acquitting them and that the evide
Order of acquittal - Confirmed - Scope of section 378 Cr.P.C. and interference by High Court in an appeal has been considered makes it clear that order of acquittal in this case is not one which coul....
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the upholding of the acquittal.
The judgment underscores the high standard of proof required in criminal cases, the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and the limited scope of appellate review in acquittal appeals.
Appeal against acquittal – Accused having secured his acquittal, presumption of his innocence is further reaffirmed and strengthened by trial Court.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of clear evidence for conviction and the presumption of innocence in criminal cases.
In appeals against acquittal, courts must uphold the presumption of innocence and require a high burden of proof on the prosecution to demonstrate perverse findings to overturn an acquittal.
The principle of double presumption in favor of the accused and the requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.
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 int....
The appellate court must respect the trial court's credibility assessments unless found to be perverse, while overturning acquittals requires strong evidence and cannot merely rely on the possibility....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
