The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for trustworthy and credible evidence, as well as the need for corroboration when relying on a solitary eyewitness. The court also dismissed the significance of the appellant's abscondence as conclusive evidence of guilt.

JUDGMENT

Oswal, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.12.2013 and 31.12.2013 respectively passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in file No. 33/Challan, titled 'State of J&K Vs. Deepak Singh and others' whereby the learned trial vide judgment dated 30.12.2013 has convicted the appellant for commission of offences under Section 302 and 452 RPC and acquitted the other accused and vide order dated 31.12.2013 has sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the commission of offence under Section 302 RPC and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for commission of offence under Section 452 RPC.

2. The appeal has been filed primarily on the ground that the learned trial court while convicting the appellant has not rightly appreciated the evidence.

3. Mr. R. K. Kotwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial court has convicted the appellant solely on the basis of statement of one witness i.e. PW-Bhim Singh, whose testimony was full of contradictions and contrary to the case projected by the prosecution. He further laid stress upon the fact that PW-Bhim Singh denied to have made any application for registration of FIR, particularly when on the basis of this application duly signed by him, FIR in question was registered. He also laid stress on the fact that PW-Bhim Singh has attributed the disclosure statement to the appellant whereas the appellant had never made disclosure statement with regard to the weapon of offence. He further argued that the appellant could not have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 RPC, particularly when he was charged for commission of offence under Section 302/34 RPC and further that when other accused have been acquitted and act of committing the murder of the deceased has not been attributed to the appellant, he could not have been convicted by the learned trial court for commission of offence under section 302 RPC. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in case titled 'Baikunth Nath Chowdhary Vs. State of Orissa' reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2337.

4. Per contra, Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently argued that PW-Bhim Singh has categorically proved that it was the appellant who caught hold of the deceased when he was murdered and further that there appears to be no reason as to why the old man of 80 years of age would wrongly implicate the appellant for commission of offence of murder. He argued that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. The prosecution story is that on 25.05.2008 the complainant-Bhim Singh lodged a written report at Police Post Sandwan wherein it was mentioned that his nephew Sain Singh, who was doing a private job after his retirement from the Army returned to his home in the night and was resting in his room after having dinner. At about 10.15 PM accused Sonu Singh opened the gate and entered the house and called Sain Singh at the gate on the pretext of some work. Sain Singh accompanied Sonu and before he could reach the gate, Surjit Singh and Deepak Singh both sons of Janak Singh who were hiding there, caught hold of Sain Singh and inflicted injuries upon him with Kirch as a result of which Sain Singh fell on the ground and the accused ran away. He along with his son Uttam Singh took the injured to the Govt. Medical College Hospital, Jammu. All the above mentioned accused were having enmity with Sain Singh regarding a tender of Municipal Committee and because of this enmity, Sain Singh was attacked. After receipt of this written application on 25.05.2008, at 11.15 PM, the entry of the said report was made vide No. 23 dated 25.05.2008. On the basis of this report No. 23 dated 25.05.2008 of Police Post Sandwan, FIR No. 136/2008 for commission of offences under Section 448,