The limited scope of interference with judgments of acquittal and the importance of giving due importance to the conclusions of the trial court if arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Acquittal Appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 20.02.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in File No. 61/Sessions titled State vs. Basharat Mehmood whereby the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/307/120-B/121-A RPC, 3 PSS Act.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by the appellant in support of the appeal, it is necessary to notice brief resume of prosecution case:

On 11.03.2003 at about 7:20 pm, sound of a blast was heard at Police Post Rajouri. Om Parkash (SI) In-charge Police Post, Rajouri came to know that a blast has taken place in the Sweet Shop of Ashwani Kumar situated at City Chowk Rajouri in which a number of persons have been injured and Ashwani Kumar has died on spot. The blast has been caused by antinational elements with the aid and assistance of ISI agency of Pakistan with the intention to cause communal tension and to damage the solidarity and integrity of the Country. A case for commission of offences u/sections 302/307/120-B/121/124 RPC was registered and the investigation commenced. During investigation, the site plan was prepared and the postmortem of Ashwani Kumar was conducted. Other injured in the aforesaid incident were immediately taken to District Hospital, Rajouri. However, the injured Bodh Raj was referred to GMC, Jammu who succumbed to his injuries. Certain articles were seized from the spot and statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested who is stated to have confessed the guilt. The accused was also got identified by the witnesses by holding a Test Identification parade. Upon completion of investigation, the police found the allegations substantiated and presented the challan against the accused in Special Designated Court under TADA/POTA at Jammu where the accused was formally charge-sheeted on 10.06.2005 for commission of offences u/sections 302/307/326/323/121/122/124-A/120-B RPC and 3-PSS Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. With a view to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PWs Vijay Khajuria, Raman Kumar, Sunil Chadha, Yoga Singh, Zahoor Din, Naresh Kumar, Dinesh Kumar, Ram Lal, Shan Lal, Dr. Mushtaq Hussain, Ramesh Chander, Tilak Raj, Om Parkash and Inder Singh Jasrotia. The incriminating evidence was put to the accused and his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied all the charges. However, in defence, the accused did not examine any witness.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that during the trial, the case has been transferred to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri (trial Court) in view of amendment made in Section 2 of the J&K Prevention and Suppression of Sabotage Act.

5. The trial Court after hearing the prosecution and the defence and evaluating the evidence that had come on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the respondent/accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt and as a result, acquitted him giving him the benefit of doubt.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the State is in appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the respondent. The impugned judgment has been assailed by the State, inter-alia, on the following grounds:

(i) The judgment impugned is against the law and facts of the present case, as such is not sustainable in the eye of law.

(ii) The trial Court has not properly appreciated the statements of the witnesses in right perspective and acquitted the respondent by passing the impugned judgment.

(iii) The decision of the trial Court is based on an erroneous view of law.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment of acquittal.

8. The present case is based upon the testimony of eye witnesses, who are PW Vijay Khajuria, PW Yoga Singh, PW Zahoor Din, PW Naresh Kumar, PW Dinesh K