The reluctance to interfere with acquittal unless the conclusion recorded by the trial court is not a possible view.

JUDGMENT

Per Oswal-J. - The present acquittal appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 21.10.2010 passed by the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in case titled 'State of J&K Vs. Sukhvir Singh alias Babu' whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges for commission of offences under Section 302 and 452 RPC in FIR No. 30/2004 registered with Police Station, Miran Sahib.

2. The appeal has been filed on the ground that there was sufficient material on record to convict the respondent, but the learned trial court has not appreciated the law and facts of the case, which has resulted in un-warranted acquittal of the respondent.

3. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently argued that the PW1-Gurmeet Singh and PW2-Gursharan Kour have categorically stated that it was the respondent who had killed their mother, but despite that the learned trial court acquitted the respondent. He further argued that the weapon of offence was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the respondent and as such, there was abundant evidence on record to convict the respondent, but the learned trial court has fallen in error of fact as well as law while acquitting the respondent.

4. Per contra, Mr. Ved Raj Wazir, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that there are various infirmities in the evidence led by the prosecution and only the interested witnesses were cited by the prosecution to prove the case against the respondent, despite availability of the independent witnesses. He further argued that the offence was allegedly committed between 10/11 PM and the respondent has categorically proved that he was suffering from nightblindness and further that PW 1-Gurmeet Singh was also kept in Police custody in connection with the case, as admitted by his real sister i.e. PW 2-Gursharan Kour. He further argued that there was no light on the place of occurrence and the hair strands recovered from the fist of the deceased were sent to the FSL after inordinate delay and no reason has been furnished by the Investigating Officer for such delay.

5. Heard and perused the record of the trial court.

6. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, as they emanate from the charge-sheet are that an information was received at Police Station on 28.04.2004 at around 11.30 P.M. from a reliable source that at about 10/11 P.M. one unknown person entered the house of Jeet Kour-deceased, who was sitting on her bed in her room. She was assaulted by the said person with a sharp edged weapon and her dead body was lying there. On receipt of this information, FIR No. 30/2004 was registered and investigation was commenced. The Investigating Officer took the custody of the dead body and photographs of the dead body were also taken. The Investigating Officer seized the plain clay and the blood stained clay and sealed the same. From the fist of the deceased hair strands were found, which were also seized. The Investigating Officer also took the samples of the blood stains from gate with white cloth for chemical examination. The statements of PWs-Gurmeet Singh and Gursharan Kour were recorded under Section 161 Cr. PC. Post mortem of the deceased was conducted in Govt. Hospital R. S. Pura and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was handed over to her legal heirs for performing the last rites. The accused was arrested and in custody he made the disclosure statement regarding the weapon of offence and also the clothes. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, the weapon of offence and his clothes were recovered. Hair strands of the accused were also taken and were sent to FSL for examination. After the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer proved the offences under Section 302 and 452 RPC against the respondent and laid the charge-sheet before the concerned Magistrate. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was co