IMPORTANT POINT : : (1) In a criminal trial, it is duty of Court to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take place of legal proof – Suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be, is not a substitute for legal proof required to substantiate charges against respondent/accused for commission of crime.
(2) Dying declaration cannot be equated with evidence of an accomplice – Fitness of person, making dying declaration is sine-qua-non for relying upon a dying declaration as substantive piece of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAN LAL, J.

1. Instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2014 rendered by the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge Rajouri (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”) in case File No. 30/Challan titled, “State VS. Balbir Singh”, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him in FIR No. 65/2007 of Police Station Nowshera for commission of offences u/ss 364/302 RPC.

2. Aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 31-07-2014, appellant/State has questioned it’s legality, propriety and correctness on the following grounds: –

(i) that the order of the trial Court is against the law and facts of the case, there is sufficient material on record to convict the respondent/accused, but the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the law and facts of the case, which has resulted into acquittal of the respondent/accused;

(ii) that the prosecution has established the case against the respondent by adducing documentary as well as oral evidence, which in ordinary course of nature is sufficient to prove the guilt of respondent/accused who has willfully and intentionally committed the crime for which he deserves to be punished;

(iii) that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its true and correct perspective, the important pieces of evidence have been ignored, the judgment is based on surmises and conjectures, the conclusion drawn by the trial Court is against the weight of evidence, the occurrence is proved therefore the acquittal is bad in the eyes of law, as the trial Court has taken a hyper technical approach, whereas, the direct and circumstantial evidence have sufficiently proved the guilt of the respondent, therefore, the impugned judgment, which is bad in the eyes of law, is liable to be set aside.

3. Sh. Bhanu Jasrotia, Ld. GA, appearing on behalf of the appellant/State, has vehemently submitted arguments, that in the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, the trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the respondent/accused for commission of crime of a murder under Sections 302/364 RPC, the trial Court ought to have relied upon the oral as well as documentary evidence which was led by the prosecution as such evidence is cogent, credible and trustworthy against respondent/accused, but the reasons assigned by the trial Court in appreciating the evidence do not inspire confidence. It is argued, that the trial Court has erred in not relying upon oral as well as documentary evidence, and if the trial Court in it’s right perspective would have appreciated the evidence, it could have recorded finding of conviction against respondent/accused.

4. Sh. Raghubir Singh Ld. Counsel for respondent/accused, per contra, while supporting the impugned judgment of the trial Court has strenuously argued, that the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the offences of kidnapping and murder u/ss 364/302 RPC have not been proved against the respondent/accused. It is argued, that the judgment impugned, acquitting respondent/accused does not suffer from any perversity, impropriety or illegality and the same does not call for any interference by the appellate court. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the appeal.

5. The facts germane to filing of the instant acquittal appeal lie in a narrow compass. For the sake of brevity, the prosecution story is briefly narrated as under: –

“that on 22.06.2007, complainant-Mohd. Nazir lodged a written application/complaint before the Police Station Nowshera stating therein, that he is living alongwith his daughter-in-law and granddaughter aged 2 ½ years at Mora Dhak. In his neighborhood, Mohan Lal S/o Mansha Ram’s brother-in-law-Balbi